Immaculate Conception

[~Anastasia~]

We don't say God preserved her from sinning, as she had a free will just like the rest of us. We say that God preserved her from Sin. Here is the thing. Mary had the power to sin. She wasn't forced by God to live a life of righteousness. She lived a life of righteousness because she loved God. Did He give her the grace to live that life of righteousness, without a doubt He did, she was the mother of His Son, was she not.

Not that I'm doubting you, but can you produce the relevant Catechism or something official? I am aware of the wording "preserved from the stain of Original sin" which could be what you are saying. I'm not sure EXACTLY what it means to be "preserved from the stain of original sin" ... though I would be asking if death (which the curse of death came upon mankind through Adam's sin) would not be part of the "stain of original sin" and if not, why not, in order to understand. Since Mary did die.

We do certainly agree that she was uniquely blessed by the grace of God "Hail Mary, full of grace" and we know that cooperation with the grace of God helps keep us from sin. This, along with her close relationship and lifelong devotion to Christ, are some of the reasons she is a great example of how to be a Christian, to us.

No from our point of view, the IC speaks more of the Son's love of His mother than anything else. When one truly delves deep into what humanity's fallen nature truly means, it really starts to make more sense, IMO.

So according the Catholicism, basically Mary alone was somehow preserved from original sin because Jesus loved her more than He loves the rest of us? I'm not sure if that's actually what you're saying (forgive me if I misunderstand), but that's what it sounds like.

In response, we would agree that Jesus surely has a unique bond with Mary, as she is His mother. But I'm a bit uncomfortable with her being a special ontological benefit as a result. Would this mean she didn't need to be "saved"? It sounds like it, if she was preserved from any connection to Adam's sin and had none of her own. I'm afraid we would have a problem with that as well.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I will only address what I see is...curious?

I'm kind of surprised by this paragraph to be honest. I didn't know that Orthodoxy believed that it is in our nature to be sinful. This is surprising to me in all honesty.

Anyway, here is my understanding of it. Human beings are not naturally prone to sin. That would mean that God created us to be sinners. This would be a strange idea. Even after the fall of man, one cannot say that God changed the nature of man to become sinners. This would be a strange idea as well. The understanding of the fallen nature of man, is that man has been weakened in his nature or maybe a better word would be damaged or diseased? Another way to look at it, is that before the fall, man lived in the full grace of God, and thus he was righteous before God; the sin of Adam, turned humanity away from God, and thus rejected God's grace and humanity ceased to naturally be righteous. Anyway the point I'm trying to make here is that we don't see the nature of man to be sinful, and right now mankind lives in a state less than what they are suppose to be. In a sense mankind, along with the fallen angels, are the only creatures of God, that are not fulfilling our nature as we were made to be.

Well, I don't wish to go beyond what I know that we teach. This is not an area I've focused on in study (kept meaning to, as I am interested, but there is soooo much richness to explore).

So I want to be careful in what I say.

God did not create us to be sinners, no. Adam had the potential (theoretically) to have never sinned.

And no, we don't believe that God changed our nature.

However, we would say that human beings born after the fall ARE prone to sin. The world is infected by sin, sin multiplies, and because we have that bent, we will all sin if we live to be old enough to make choices and act on them.

(I actually know more about the Catholic explanation for this, as I listened to a program on EWTN one day, and wanted to come back to TAW and ask for our teaching on it, but got distracted.) So I don't think I will say more than that about the mechanics.

I need to do a little more study on this. But I know that Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, and others I have listened to, have expressed this matter of Christ's nature as part of our concern.

The best way to look at this IMO and I don't think that it is a conundrum, is that between mother and child there is always a very unique bond of love, as having shared in the same flesh for 9 months. I don't see how Jesus would have been different, especially considering that Jesus is God, and God is Charity (Agape).

When we say that Mary is the Immaculate Conception we are truly saying that at no point, even at her conception, has the bond of love between her and her Son, ever broken. Is that not what sin is? Turning our backs on God's Love and Goodness, to love something else more?

I can see your point, but I am still uncomfortable with it. Something doesn't feel right to point to Mary's Conception and say that if it had been like the rest of us, it would represent a break of love between her and Christ. It almost even implies something like prexistent souls, since in order for love to be broken, it would to exist already. And it also seems to imply that the action of being conceived otherwise is an action taken by the child conceived, in order to result in a break of love. If it is something that happens TO us (being conceived) ... how can it be an action on our part breaking love? This begins to get philosophical, which can easily lead to error, but the whole thing feels not right. I suspect there has been more informed comment on the subject already than I am offering here. But what I do know just makes me uncomfortable with this.

I don't think that when one truly delves into the differences that there is truly an opposition. I know this would be a disagreement, but I do think that they are not irreconcilable.

For some of our disagreements this may be. There is quite often misunderstanding on both sides, and difficulty in truly communicating. If I didn't know Western thought before I started studying Eastern, I wouldn't likely be able to see how often that happens.

But there truly is an undercurrent of difference that colors this any many of our differences, stemming from the tendency of the East to have an overall view of sin and the fall as a sickness of our souls, that God desires to heal and restore, compared to the more legalistic tendency introduced by (Augustine, was it?) that Catholicism seems to emphasize. And I realize that we both include both of these aspects, but it is the emphasis that tends to separate us. However, in some cases, we may begin to understand each other better as a result of understanding what we do share.

But with all due respect (and I do mean that) ... I find a near-universal tendency for Catholics to play down our differences, but I don't know any Catholics who were once Orthodox, and so understand both ways of thinking. And it IS a different way of thinking that takes months or more likely years of immersion and study to understand.

 

[Erose]

Not that I'm doubting you, but can you produce the relevant Catechism or something official?

Here is the definition from the actual papal document that declared the teaching:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. (Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854)

Here is the link if you are interested in the whole document which goes into much detail on the why: CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Ineffabilis Deus (1854)

So according the Catholicism, basically Mary alone was somehow preserved from original sin because Jesus loved her more than He loves the rest of us? I'm not sure if that's actually what you're saying (forgive me if I misunderstand), but that's what it sounds like.

I'm saying that Mary's bond with Christ was completely different from His and ours. We are His brethren, she is His Mother.

In response, we would agree that Jesus surely has a unique bond with Mary, as she is His mother. But I'm a bit uncomfortable with her being a special ontological benefit as a result. Would this mean she didn't need to be "saved"? It sounds like it, if she was preserved from any connection to Adam's sin and had none of her own. I'm afraid we would have a problem with that as well.

From the same document: All know, likewise, how eager the bishops have been to profess openly and publicly, even in ecclesiastical assemblies, that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime.

 

[Erose]

I can see your point, but I am still uncomfortable with it. Something doesn't feel right to point to Mary's Conception and say that if it had been like the rest of us, it would represent a break of love between her and Christ. It almost even implies something like prexistent souls, since in order for love to be broken, it would to exist already. And it also seems to imply that the action of being conceived otherwise is an action taken by the child conceived, in order to result in a break of love. If it is something that happens TO us (being conceived) ... how can it be an action on our part breaking love? This begins to get philosophical, which can easily lead to error, but the whole thing feels not right. I suspect there has been more informed comment on the subject already than I am offering here. But what I do know just makes me uncomfortable with this.

Here is the thing. I think we can agree that there is something about Adam's sin, that not only damaged our nature, but also separated us from God, or at least weakened the bond between us. Baptism in our theology unites us to God, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and restores the bridge between us and God. If there wasn't something that separated us, then Christ did not need to redeem us right? Baptism grafts onto the vine of Christ, because we are not part of that vine, until we are redeemed.

What we are saying about Mary is that her redemption occurred at her conception, due to the merits of her future Son, who already exists. I see Mary as the first Christian, because she is the first person to be redeemed by her Son. Her redemption is unique as it is in preparation of Jesus' redeeming Act on the Cross.

For some of our disagreements this may be. There is quite often misunderstanding on both sides, and difficulty in truly communicating. If I didn't know Western thought before I started studying Eastern, I wouldn't likely be able to see how often that happens.

But there truly is an undercurrent of difference that colors this any many of our differences, stemming from the tendency of the East to have an overall view of sin and the fall as a sickness of our souls, that God desires to heal and restore, compared to the more legalistic tendency introduced by (Augustine, was it?) that Catholicism seems to emphasize. And I realize that we both include both of these aspects, but it is the emphasis that tends to separate us. However, in some cases, we may begin to understand each other better as a result of understanding what we do share.

But with all due respect (and I do mean that) ... I find a near-universal tendency for Catholics to play down our differences, but I don't know any Catholics who were once Orthodox, and so understand both ways of thinking. And it IS a different way of thinking that takes months or more likely years of immersion and study to understand.

The interesting folks to listen to are Eastern Catholics, whose theological emphasis and language is much closer to yours than to mine. I think it is here, where we will eventually learn what really separates us and what doesn't. Also I think you are getting more Westerners becoming Orthodox, that this will also provide illumination over time as well.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Indeed, we are getting more Catholics (and Protestants) who become Orthodox, so there are many "with us" who have the understanding from both points of view. This is precisely why I am in a good position, in my own parish, to interact with visitors.

I will go back and look at the longer document you linked. I'm familiar with short excerpt you posted.

Several points - we do not recognize "merits" and as you probably know, our view of God's grace as His energy, uncreated, and not possible to measure, is completely different. So we cannot affirm that there are any merits to apply to Mary.

If she were redeemed from her conception, and not touching original sin in any way, why would she die? Adam would not have died if he had not sinned, so why would Mary? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm sincerely asking - doesn't that follow?

And I'm more familiar with some of the Catholic details (if the EWTN speaker was correct, and I believe he was).

It is indeed interesting to ask these questions of Eastern Catholics. I know an EC priest and upon our first meeting, we sat and hashed out theology for hours. It was very enjoyable. But the fact is ... he might not actually fit what Catholicism demands of him. I'm not sure of the "official" requirements, but he denies purgatory, for example, and we discussed it quite closely because I was seeking to find out if he just straddled a middle ground, combined our two theologies, or had a different understanding of meaning. Rather, I found him agreeing with our theology on every single point. I wanted to ask him about some of the papal beliefs, because obviously he is in communion with the Pope of Rome, but I sensed some discomfort on that topic and so did not go there for his sake.

And of course, he is only one man. But a longtime priest, Roman rite at first, having changed to Eastern Catholicism, and extremely well-informed on theology. He is becoming a sort of close-friend-of-family-in-law, so I very much look forward to continued discourse over the years, hopefully.

 

[Erose]

If she were redeemed from her conception, and not touching original sin in any way, why would she die? Adam would not have died if he had not sinned, so why would Mary? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm sincerely asking - doesn't that follow?

You know I used to ask the same question about baptized infants, when I was younger. I think that when looking that the damage of sin on humanity, one of those damages, is mortality. If one through baptism removes the stain of sin, then how could they possibly die after all sin is removed? Is not death a consequence for sin? Then I really started to think about the first death and the second death found in the Book of Revelations. The 1st death which is our physical deaths isn't something that we should fear, because it really isn't true death right? For a righteous person, the 1st death is truly our opportunity to see God face to face finally right? It is the second death that is to be feared, which is the separation of the goats from the sheep and the eternal torment.

It is indeed interesting to ask these questions of Eastern Catholics. I know an EC priest and upon our first meeting, we sat and hashed out theology for hours. It was very enjoyable. But the fact is ... he might not actually fit what Catholicism demands of him. I'm not sure of the "official" requirements, but he denies purgatory, for example, and we discussed it quite closely because I was seeking to find out if he just straddled a middle ground, combined our two theologies, or had a different understanding of meaning. Rather, I found him agreeing with our theology on every single point. I wanted to ask him about some of the papal beliefs, because obviously he is in communion with the Pope of Rome, but I sensed some discomfort on that topic and so did not go there for his sake.

And of course, he is only one man. But a longtime priest, Roman rite at first, having changed to Eastern Catholicism, and extremely well-informed on theology. He is becoming a sort of close-friend-of-family-in-law, so I very much look forward to continued discourse over the years, hopefully.

In all honesty what I see in the future, if there is ever a return of communion between the East/West/Orientals and even some Protestant Church groups, what we will see is that the "fringe" theology won't mater to communion. As long as the theology does not conflict with the Deposit of Faith, it will be what it will be. An interesting thing that I have seen in recent years is that even the Vatican has been stepping in to prevent the Eastern Churches from changing their traditional understanding of theology. One example is that a few years ago, the Chaldean Church revised their liturgy, and they were going to include the filioque into their creed. Pope Benedict stepped in and recommended to them that they should not do this, as it would not be part of their tradition of faith.

Anyway what I think we would see if communion happens, is really no change whatsoever to either Church and how they do things, except for allowing intercommunion among the laity. In my opinion that is the only way it is going to happen. Forcing the West to become Eastern or the East to become Western, just is not ever going to happen. Our traditions are just too deep, and they should and need to be protected at all costs. Just my opinion anyway.

 

[~Anastasia~]

You know I used to ask the same question about baptized infants, when I was younger. I think that when looking that the damage of sin on humanity, one of those damages, is mortality. If one through baptism removes the stain of sin, then how could they possibly die after all sin is removed? Is not death a consequence for sin? Then I really started to think about the first death and the second death found in the Book of Revelations. The 1st death which is our physical deaths isn't something that we should fear, because it really isn't true death right? For a righteous person, the 1st death is truly our opportunity to see God face to face finally right? It is the second death that is to be feared, which is the separation of the goats from the sheep and the eternal torment.

But if a baptized infant is in the same state as Mary was after being immaculately conceived, why would God need to preserve her from the moment of conception? It seems to make the IC unimportant. I think that since Catholicism holds to the IC, it should place Mary in a different category than simply a baptized infant, wouldn't it? That infant will still need to choose Christ and live a life of faith to have their own salvation, won't they? While you are saying that Mary was already redeemed by her very conception. My apologies, but I don't think that answers the question why Mary died if she was immaculately conceived?

That does go back to what "being preserved from the stain of original sin" EXACTLY entails (and haven't had a chance to read yet ... sick baby chicken here interrupting my time).

In all honesty what I see in the future, if there is ever a return of communion between the East/West/Orientals and even some Protestant Church groups, what we will see is that the "fringe" theology won't mater to communion. As long as the theology does not conflict with the Deposit of Faith, it will be what it will be. An interesting thing that I have seen in recent years is that even the Vatican has been stepping in to prevent the Eastern Churches from changing their traditional understanding of theology. One example is that a few years ago, the Chaldean Church revised their liturgy, and they were going to include the filioque into their creed. Pope Benedict stepped in and recommended to them that they should not do this, as it would not be part of their tradition of faith.

Well, I am thankful that he encouraged them to keep their Traditions.

Anyway what I think we would see if communion happens, is really no change whatsoever to either Church and how they do things, except for allowing intercommunion among the laity. In my opinion that is the only way it is going to happen. Forcing the West to become Eastern or the East to become Western, just is not ever going to happen. Our traditions are just too deep, and they should and need to be protected at all costs. Just my opinion anyway.

I just don't know. While I would love to see all Christianity united, and I believe that was Christ's desire and command, I don't know. Part of our understanding of Eucharistic Communion is a common faith, so important distinctions of actual theology would be a barrier. The Church recognizes that certain customs and ways of doing this and that can legitimately change, such as the language we use for the local congregation, and moving from chant to lyrical singing as maybe suits the local (or national) custom. But some of the more basic beliefs could prove problematic.

I'm sure you probably don't want to lose your Traditions. And since we consider ours unchanged and unbroken from earliest times, we don't want to accept changes to ours either. So we may be at a stalemate, if we retain the meaning of Eucharistic fellowship (κοινωνία / koinonia).

 

[prodromos]

The context of my post was the comment be "Eros" that............
"This may be the case, I don't know. I haven't really met anyone who worships Mary as a goddess".

Since no one accepts Lincoln as anything more than a past President of the USA, the better question is do you believe that the millions of people who went to a Catholic religious site Named after and promoted in the name of Mary, went there for any other reason than to worship Mary?

The point is that even though he may not know of any one who worships Mary, there are millions who do.

You have not established any such thing. All you have given is the number of visitors to a Marion memorial and then made the leap to claiming the visitors are worshiping her. Since you don't know the hearts of the visitors to the Lincoln memorial any more than those visiting the Marian memorials it would be EQUALLY INVALID to claim they are worshiping him as it is to claim that of visitors to the Marian memorials.

 

[Major1]

You have not established any such thing. All you have given is the number of visitors to a Marion memorial and then made the leap to claiming the visitors are worshiping her. Since you don't know the hearts of the visitors to the Lincoln memorial any more than those visiting the Marian memorials it would be EQUALLY INVALID to claim they are worshiping him as it is to claim that of visitors to the Marian memorials.

LOL!! Your right! They all go there to buy a hot dog and coke and see the scenery. That is their purpose.

I go to watch Alabama play football because of the same thing.

I go to Nascar races for the same thing.

You believe what ever you want to believe my dear friend but IMO the people who go to Marian memorial go there to worship her. That is why they bow down to her and kiss her statue. Whether you like it or admit the fact is Roman Catholics worship Mary as if she were God.

Everywhere are images, pictures, representations of Mary. Millions upon millions of people every day pray to her. They pray to her to save them. They pray to her to protect them. They pray to her to help them, to comfort them, to rescue them, to bring them to heaven, and she has never heard one of those prayers. Ever.

 

[Major1]

Well, I don't wish to go beyond what I know that we teach. This is not an area I've focused on in study (kept meaning to, as I am interested, but there is soooo much richness to explore).

So I want to be careful in what I say.

God did not create us to be sinners, no. Adam had the potential (theoretically) to have never sinned.

And no, we don't believe that God changed our nature.

However, we would say that human beings born after the fall ARE prone to sin. The world is infected by sin, sin multiplies, and because we have that bent, we will all sin if we live to be old enough to make choices and act on them.

(I actually know more about the Catholic explanation for this, as I listened to a program on EWTN one day, and wanted to come back to TAW and ask for our teaching on it, but got distracted.) So I don't think I will say more than that about the mechanics.

I need to do a little more study on this. But I know that Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, and others I have listened to, have expressed this matter of Christ's nature as part of our concern.





I can see your point, but I am still uncomfortable with it. Something doesn't feel right to point to Mary's Conception and say that if it had been like the rest of us, it would represent a break of love between her and Christ. It almost even implies something like prexistent souls, since in order for love to be broken, it would to exist already. And it also seems to imply that the action of being conceived otherwise is an action taken by the child conceived, in order to result in a break of love. If it is something that happens TO us (being conceived) ... how can it be an action on our part breaking love? This begins to get philosophical, which can easily lead to error, but the whole thing feels not right. I suspect there has been more informed comment on the subject already than I am offering here. But what I do know just makes me uncomfortable with this.




For some of our disagreements this may be. There is quite often misunderstanding on both sides, and difficulty in truly communicating. If I didn't know Western thought before I started studying Eastern, I wouldn't likely be able to see how often that happens.

But there truly is an undercurrent of difference that colors this any many of our differences, stemming from the tendency of the East to have an overall view of sin and the fall as a sickness of our souls, that God desires to heal and restore, compared to the more legalistic tendency introduced by (Augustine, was it?) that Catholicism seems to emphasize. And I realize that we both include both of these aspects, but it is the emphasis that tends to separate us. However, in some cases, we may begin to understand each other better as a result of understanding what we do share.

But with all due respect (and I do mean that) ... I find a near-universal tendency for Catholics to play down our differences, but I don't know any Catholics who were once Orthodox, and so understand both ways of thinking. And it IS a different way of thinking that takes months or more likely years of immersion and study to understand.

I admire you ability to be so politically correct in your comments. I agree with what you are so wonderfully saying.

I have always wanted to have that ability. However God has decided in His wisdom that I would be one who had a more direct approach. I guess that comes from my early life playing football for men who pounded into you every day to go straight forward and attack. It would also come from my time in Viet Nam when the only way to survive was straight ahead into the fire of the enemy.

Anyway........having said that I only wanted to assure you that there is absolutely NO Bile Scriptures which support or even suggest that Mary was sinless. They DO NOT EXIST and the bottom line is that the doctrine was made up by the RCC in totality.

Mary did not have an “immaculate conception.” The Bible doesn’t suggest Mary’s birth was anything but a normal human birth. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, but the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is unbiblical.

In addition to that, nothing is said in the Scriptures about Mary ascending to heaven or having an exalted role there. As the earthly mother of Jesus, Mary should be respected, but she is not worthy of our worship or adoration.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You have not established any such thing. All you have given is the number of visitors to a Marion memorial and then made the leap to claiming the visitors are worshiping her. Since you don't know the hearts of the visitors to the Lincoln memorial any more than those visiting the Marian memorials it would be EQUALLY INVALID to claim they are worshiping him as it is to claim that of visitors to the Marian memorials.

The one thing that actually has been established thus far in this wildly meandering thread is that the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a dogma unique to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I admire you ability to be so politically correct in your comments. I agree with what you are so wonderfully saying.

I have always wanted to have that ability. However God has decided in His wisdom that I would be one who had a more direct approach. I guess that comes from my early life playing football for men who pounded into you every day to go straight forward and attack. It would also come from my time in Viet Nam when the only way to survive was straight ahead into the fire of the enemy.

Anyway........having said that I only wanted to assure you that there is absolutely NO Bile Scriptures which support or even suggest that Mary was sinless. They DO NOT EXIST and the bottom line is that the doctrine was made up by the RCC in totality.

Mary did not have an “immaculate conception.” The Bible doesn’t suggest Mary’s birth was anything but a normal human birth. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, but the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is unbiblical.

In addition to that, nothing is said in the Scriptures about Mary ascending to heaven or having an exalted role there. As the earthly mother of Jesus, Mary should be respected, but she is not worthy of our worship or adoration.

Thank you for the compliments, lol. I don't think it is any special ability - just a desire to be precise, and fair, and that I have studied quite a bit of what various denominations believe (including Catholicism, though I knew I would never become Catholic).

We are in agreement that Mary was not immaculately conceived, and that is the important issue here. I'm most concerned in that post with WHY we cannot believe that, and looking to understand how Catholics can, given certain things we do know (such as Mary having died physical death). But I have not gotten that particular answer to my satisfaction. It's ok.


I doubt you will like the rest of what I would say, but we do not absolutely require that a thing be written in Scripture to believe it, if it was the witness of the early Church and accepted before Scripture was even written, in some cases, but certainly before it was canonized. We see explicit instructions in a letter that came to be made part of Scripture - "Hold Fast to the Traditions received from us (the Apostles), whether they came by oral teaching, or by our letter" (slightly paraphrased).

I will also agree with you that it is completely wrong to worship Mary.

As for the historical source of various teaching, that is indeed very important to know. Vitally important, I would say. But it is extremely oversimplified and in some cases outright in error to think that anything Protestantism identifies as "Roman Catholic" was "invented by Rome". In some cases, we would agree, such as the teaching of the Immaculate Conception. But in some cases that kind of assumption could lead to complete error. It cannot all be lumped together.

It really is quite eye-opening to find out where various beliefs come from, whether uniquely Catholic, uniquely Protestant (or only a type of Protestant), or shared. Though it can be quite challenging to face this knowledge and learn the real source of various beliefs.

 

[FenderTL5]

.

 

[Erose]

But if a baptized infant is in the same state as Mary was after being immaculately conceived, why would God need to preserve her from the moment of conception?

One point here that is obvious is who was going to baptize her? An infant is baptized and saved through the faith of his/her parents. Mary was redeemed and saved at conception through the love and grace of her future Son.

It seems to make the IC unimportant. I think that since Catholicism holds to the IC, it should place Mary in a different category than simply a baptized infant, wouldn't it?

I'm not sure why it would. I in no way would consider baptism unimportant, and in fact we seem to forget at times that a baptism is a miracle. Something miraculous is happening, albeit we cannot see it with our eyes.

That infant will still need to choose Christ and live a life of faith to have their own salvation, won't they?

And did not Mary as well? Mary had free will just like the rest of us has. The only difference between us and her, is that she chose to be obedient always and never disobedient. She could have very easily have said no to Gabriel. She could have just as easily walked away from the idea of being God the Son's mother, and quite honestly no one could have faulted her here. To live a life on the run, risking a life of being shunned as an adulterous, carry the greatest of burdens of raising her creator.

While you are saying that Mary was already redeemed by her very conception. My apologies, but I don't think that answers the question why Mary died if she was immaculately conceived?

Because now all men die a physical death. Even Jesus died a physical death, it is what must be now. No matter how righteous one becomes they must die a physical death. In all reality physical death really isn't the punishment for sin, physical death is a transition now. It is spiritual death that is the consequence of sin. Here is a question for you. Why do animals die?

That does go back to what "being preserved from the stain of original sin" EXACTLY entails (and haven't had a chance to read yet ... sick baby chicken here interrupting my time).

This is the way I view it, and I believe this is well based off of Church teaching, but seen in a different view point. Sin affects us in three ways: 1) it is the breaking of commandment, and thus there must be a punitive repayment for breaking of said commandment; 2) it is damaging one self, i.e. one wounds their own soul, their own life, their own flesh; and 3) it injures, and may even sever our relationship with God. Relationships are a two way street. Both sides have to want it. God always wants a relationship with us, the question always is do we want it as well. What we call mortal sin, is us turning from God, and choosing something over Him.

Anyway concerning original sin, due to Adam's sin, we human beings are damaged creatures that need healing, but we also are not born with a personal relationship with God. He isn't our Father, only our creator at birth. Normally baptism is the means by which the personal relationship with God is created. In baptism we become children of God, and Jesus' redemptive act is applied to us. Because Mary was chosen before the creation of the world to be the mother of God's Son, at her birth, God called her out to hold the most unique office of all. His Son's mother.

Anyway this isn't unique per say, an immaculate conception. Scripture is witness to another one as well in the prophet Jeremiah as it is written in chapter one:
4 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
6 Then said I: “Ah, Lord God!
Behold, I cannot speak, for I am a youth.”

 

[Major1]

One point here that is obvious is who was going to baptize her? An infant is baptized and saved through the faith of his/her parents. Mary was redeemed and saved at conception through the love and grace of her future Son.

I'm not sure why it would. I in no way would consider baptism unimportant, and in fact we seem to forget at times that a baptism is a miracle. Something miraculous is happening, albeit we cannot see it with our eyes.

And did not Mary as well? Mary had free will just like the rest of us has. The only difference between us and her, is that she chose to be obedient always and never disobedient. She could have very easily have said no to Gabriel. She could have just as easily walked away from the idea of being God the Son's mother, and quite honestly no one could have faulted her here. To live a life on the run, risking a life of being shunned as an adulterous, carry the greatest of burdens of raising her creator.

Because now all men die a physical death. Even Jesus died a physical death, it is what must be now. No matter how righteous one becomes they must die a physical death. In all reality physical death really isn't the punishment for sin, physical death is a transition now. It is spiritual death that is the consequence of sin. Here is a question for you. Why do animals die?

This is the way I view it, and I believe this is well based off of Church teaching, but seen in a different view point. Sin affects us in three ways: 1) it is the breaking of commandment, and thus there must be a punitive repayment for breaking of said commandment; 2) it is damaging one self, i.e. one wounds their own soul, their own life, their own flesh; and 3) it injures, and may even sever our relationship with God. Relationships are a two way street. Both sides have to want it. God always wants a relationship with us, the question always is do we want it as well. What we call mortal sin, is us turning from God, and choosing something over Him.

Anyway concerning original sin, due to Adam's sin, we human beings are damaged creatures that need healing, but we also are not born with a personal relationship with God. He isn't our Father, only our creator at birth. Normally baptism is the means by which the personal relationship with God is created. In baptism we become children of God, and Jesus' redemptive act is applied to us. Because Mary was chosen before the creation of the world to be the mother of God's Son, at her birth, God called her out to hold the most unique office of all. His Son's mother.

Anyway this isn't unique per say, an immaculate conception. Scripture is witness to another one as well in the prophet Jeremiah as it is written in chapter one:
4 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
6 Then said I: “Ah, Lord God!
Behold, I cannot speak, for I am a youth.”

Honestly my friend, you really do need to take some courses in Bible theology.

You said............
"An infant is baptized and saved through the faith of his/her parents.

There is absolutely NO Biblical truth in that statement!!!!!

Then you said.................
"Mary was redeemed and saved at conception through the love and grace of her future Son."

Again, there is absolutely NO Biblical truth in that comment!!!!


Then you said..................
"we seem to forget at times that a baptism is a miracle"

Totally incorrect and once again there is absolutely NO Bible truth to your comment.

Then there was this..............
"The only difference between us and her, is that she chose to be obedient always and never disobedient."

NOPE! Romans 3:23 says........
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

Romans 3:10 says.........
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Then we see this..............
Normally baptism is the means by which the personal relationship with God is created. In baptism we become children of God, and Jesus' redemptive act is applied to us.

NOPE! We become saved, a child of God through faith. Baptism is an act of obedience not one of salvation.

Romans 5:1-2.............
"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our LORD Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand".


Then you said...............
"Anyway this isn't unique per say, an immaculate conception. Scripture is witness to another one as well in the prophet Jeremiah as it is written in chapter one:
4 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
6 Then said I: “Ah, Lord God!
Behold, I cannot speak, for I am a youth"

That verse in NO way is speaking of or suggesting that Jeremiah was also an immaculate conception.

Where in the world are you getting such outrageous stuff. That is an absolutely incorrect exergeesis of Scripture.

With just a little Bible study can see that the meaning is, "to set apart" from a common to a special use; hence arose the secondary sense, "to sanctify," ceremonially and morally.

It is not here meant here that in any way whatsoever that Jehovah cleansed Jeremiah from original sin or regenerated him by His Spirit. What he did do is to separated him to his peculiar prophetical office, including in its range, not merely the Hebrews, but also the nations hostile to them. (Look at and read then compare Jeremiah 25:12-38,27:1-21,46:1-51:64'),

Also please read and consider Dr. HENDERSON's explination.........
"Not the effect, but the predestination in Jehovah's secret counsel, is meant by the sanctification here (compare Luke 1:15 Luke 1:41 , Acts 15:18 , Galatians 1:15 , Ephesians 1:11 ).

 

[Major1]

.

I love this comment!!!!!

 

[Phil 1:21]

I love this comment!!!!!

Gets right to the point.

 

[FenderTL5]

I love this comment!!!!!

At least I had a point.

 

[Phil 1:21]

At least I had a point.

 

[Major1]

At least I had a point.

And it was a darned good one too!