Immaculate Conception

[~Anastasia~]

My apologies, it's been a busy few days and I had trouble getting time to reply. Also wished to do so on computer, rather than phone, so again, delay.

Anastasia: 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.

OK, you have a point that baptism of the Christian sort wasn't going on back then. But what about John the Baptist? He was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was born. Was he not equally in God's grace then, as Mary was at birth? Yet he is not said to be immaculately conceived, is he? And Mary does not have to be in any special relationship with God from the moment of her conception in order to later be the mother of our Lord ... UNLESS there is something about "original sin" which affects her from the moment of conception and cannot be later erased. I have heard that reason put forth by Catholics, but again, that doesn't make sense, if a baptized infant today is in the same state. I fear I'm going around in circles on this. But if we forget the baptized infant, what about John the Baptist? Was he also immaculately conceived, according to Catholicism? I've never heard any speculation that he was. So why could the Virgin Mary not be prepared in the same way he was? What makes the IC necessary?

Anastasia: 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.

Again, I should ask, how do you compare the condition of the Virgin Mary at conception, John the Baptist in his mother's womb when he was filled with the Holy Spirit and recognized the Lord, and a baptized infant. Do you consider them all in the same state spiritually? The IC seems to imply something more. Otherwise, why is it necessary as a dogma, and brought up in terms of adoration, etc?

~Anastasia~ said: ↑
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.

You mentioned above that she was redeemed and saved at conception. But then, if she still had to choose Christ (in terms of recognizing Him as Lord, not just agreeing to give birth to Him), and if she could easily have said no to being His mother, what exactly did the IC do for her? On the one hand it seems to be saying that it did a great deal, and on the other, it seems to make not much difference. I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to understand what you believe?

~Anastasia~ said: ↑
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?

I disagree that Christ would necessarily have died a physical death. I believe He died only because He CHOSE to lay down His life, and could have lived even in spite of the Crucifixion, had He so chosen. And if He had lived on, I don't believe He would have ever died of disease or old age. I may be wrong about that, and I don't know the official doctrine on the matter, but what I have heard is the affirmation that He alone had the power to lay down His life, none could take it from Him, and He could take it up again.

Why animals die ... well, again, my opinion, but I tend to believe that animals die as a result of the curse that came upon the earth through the disobedience of Adam. Just as thorns and thistles became part of his existence, and death, I think death likewise passed to all of creation.

I'm trying to understand in what way Mary escaped what consequences through the IC? And how that uniquely prepared her to be the mother of our Lord? And why God could not have done so in any other way, given such examples as John the Baptist? According to Catholicism, at least. (We have our own beliefs on these questions.)

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.

We agree to a point, except that punitive repayment is not strictly necessary. We believe God can forgive and is not constrained to any cosmic rule. However ... due to the nature of sin and the effects of it, suffering is a common result, and can indeed be purifying as well. The other question that comes out of this concerns predestination of Mary but I don't really want to even open that one ... we might likely agree anyway.

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.”

I should have moved this to the top, as it might at least answer other questions. Are you actually saying that the Catholic Church teaches that there are other immaculate conceptions besides that of the Virgin Mary? If that is so, I certainly was not aware of that. If that is so, it might make some of your teaching more understandable, even if I still would not strictly agree.

The difference between us is perhaps based on the understanding of Original Sin and its effects. Or at least partly involving that.

Peace to you. We necessarily do not agree, but I don't wish to be antagonistic. I am merely questioning for the sake of trying to understand, though we do have fundamental disagreements between us in what we believe.

 

[Erose]

My apologies, it's been a busy few days and I had trouble getting time to reply. Also wished to do so on computer, rather than phone, so again, delay.

Same here. Very busy weekend and so far a very busy week.

OK, you have a point that baptism of the Christian sort wasn't going on back then. But what about John the Baptist? He was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was born.

Yes he was.

Was he not equally in God's grace then, as Mary was at birth?

I am not sure if that is the case, and so cannot comment one way or another. Not sure if grace is a volume thing or not.

Yet he is not said to be immaculately conceived, is he?

No he isn't. It doesn't say anything about his conception.

And Mary does not have to be in any special relationship with God from the moment of her conception in order to later be the mother of our Lord ... UNLESS there is something about "original sin" which affects her from the moment of conception and cannot be later erased.

This part perhaps will be answered below.

I have heard that reason put forth by Catholics, but again, that doesn't make sense, if a baptized infant today is in the same state. I fear I'm going around in circles on this. But if we forget the baptized infant, what about John the Baptist? Was he also immaculately conceived, according to Catholicism? I've never heard any speculation that he was. So why could the Virgin Mary not be prepared in the same way he was? What makes the IC necessary?

The answer is that John is not the new Eve. Mary is. Jesus and Mary are critical in the process of the "unmaking" of the disobedience of the first parents, by their complete obedience to God. The ancient fathers, compared the Blessed Mother to Eve in this manner. If this is the case then the New Eve like the New Adam, had to be sinless for this to be the case, for if either was sinful, then they would not be obedient.

Again, I should ask, how do you compare the condition of the Virgin Mary at conception, John the Baptist in his mother's womb when he was filled with the Holy Spirit and recognized the Lord, and a baptized infant. Do you consider them all in the same state spiritually? The IC seems to imply something more. Otherwise, why is it necessary as a dogma, and brought up in terms of adoration, etc?

IC is something more as suggested above.

You mentioned above that she was redeemed and saved at conception. But then, if she still had to choose Christ (in terms of recognizing Him as Lord, not just agreeing to give birth to Him), and if she could easily have said no to being His mother, what exactly did the IC do for her? On the one hand it seems to be saying that it did a great deal, and on the other, it seems to make not much difference. I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to understand what you believe?

The Church doesn't go into great detail on this matter, but IMO what it did for her, was that it prevented her free will not to be diminished, due to sin. One of the consequences of original sin, is that it diminishes our free will and makes it impossible for us to choose God freely. One of the teachings of Trent, speaks of initial grace. That for one to freely choose or reject God, requires initial grace from God, so that we can do so. One cannot freely choose God, without God's grace to help him/her to do so. So the primary benefit, would be that Mary, just like her Son; and just like Adam and Eve before the Fall, truly had free will, that wasn't tarnished by sin.

I disagree that Christ would necessarily have died a physical death. I believe He died only because He CHOSE to lay down His life, and could have lived even in spite of the Crucifixion, had He so chosen. And if He had lived on, I don't believe He would have ever died of disease or old age. I may be wrong about that, and I don't know the official doctrine on the matter, but what I have heard is the affirmation that He alone had the power to lay down His life, none could take it from Him, and He could take it up again.

What occurred on the Cross was a physical death. There is no way around that fact. Again, physical death is not the evil of sin, but rather the spiritual death is.

Why animals die ... well, again, my opinion, but I tend to believe that animals die as a result of the curse that came upon the earth through the disobedience of Adam. Just as thorns and thistles became part of his existence, and death, I think death likewise passed to all of creation.

But animals are not fallen creatures like mankind. Would it not seem harsh, for God to punish the animals because of Adam?

We agree to a point, except that punitive repayment is not strictly necessary. We believe God can forgive and is not constrained to any cosmic rule. However ... due to the nature of sin and the effects of it, suffering is a common result, and can indeed be purifying as well. The other question that comes out of this concerns predestination of Mary but I don't really want to even open that one ... we might likely agree anyway.

I think that when it comes to the punitive side of sin, from what I have learned, and correct me if I am wrong, is not emphasized in the East. There is more focus on it being a disease or injury that needs healing right?

Anyway forgiveness is necessary for healing no doubt, but forgiveness is only required if there was a wrong committed to forgive, i.e. punitive.

I should have moved this to the top, as it might at least answer other questions. Are you actually saying that the Catholic Church teaches that there are other immaculate conceptions besides that of the Virgin Mary? If that is so, I certainly was not aware of that. If that is so, it might make some of your teaching more understandable, even if I still would not strictly agree.

No the Church doesn't teach that there is or wasn't. The doctrine of the IC is specifically focused upon Mary herself. The Church did not go into whether or not she is and can only be the only one.

But we do see though in cases in Scripture were God called and sanctified men in a manner that would be called unique, when the office they are called to do is unique, right? Which means that God is not restricted to normal means of sanctification.

The difference between us is perhaps based on the understanding of Original Sin and its effects. Or at least partly involving that.

I agree.

Peace to you. We necessarily do not agree, but I don't wish to be antagonistic. I am merely questioning for the sake of trying to understand, though we do have fundamental disagreements between us in what we believe.

Peace be to you as well. As you may notice I'm not responding to others on this matter, just you only. Not as an insult to those others, but I really don't have time nor the desire to get in unfruitful discussion.

 

[prodromos]

No he isn't. One obvious reason for this would be that when he was filled with the Holy Spirit was when his mother heard the salutation of Christ's mother, which would mean that the filling of the Holy Spirit occurred after his conception, not at his conception.

That is when his mother, Elizabeth, was filled with the Holy Spirit. It says nothing about when John was filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Erose]

That is when his mother, Elizabeth, was filled with the Holy Spirit. It says nothing about when John was filled with the Holy Spirit.

You are correct. Thanks for correcting me on this matter.

Corrected my mistake above. Again thanks for that.

 

[HighCherub]

The Immaculate Conception altogether means that Mary was without Original Sin and altogether sinless when she begot Christ.

It is a dogma prescribed by the Pope in the mid 1800's, and has about as much bang for it's buck as the Pope in the mid 1900's who declared her physical assumption into Heaven.

Catholics do a lot to make Mary a fourth piece to the Trinity- they've given her every aspect of Christ himself; sinless, unblemished, risen from the Earth, a redeemer.

The RCC does a lot to make Christ secondary in observance in general- he's in the back of the crowd of Mary, the Saints, the Popes and the priests.

 

[Thursday]

The Immaculate Conception altogether means that Mary was without Original Sin and altogether sinless when she begot Christ.

It is a dogma prescribed by the Pope in the mid 1800's, and has about as much bang for it's buck as the Pope in the mid 1900's who declared her physical assumption into Heaven.

Catholics do a lot to make Mary a fourth piece to the Trinity- they've given her every aspect of Christ himself; sinless, unblemished, risen from the Earth, a redeemer.

The RCC does a lot to make Christ secondary in observance in general- he's in the back of the crowd of Mary, the Saints, the Popes and the priests.

This post is full of lies and I reported it.

 

[HighCherub]

This post is full of lies and I reported it.

I'm entitled to my theological opinion, you reporting my post is not valid- Mary is the 'Co-Redemptrix' according to Catholic dogma.
I simply stated what the Catholic Church teaches and followed with a contrary insistence.

If you want to debate what I've stated, you are more than welcome- it was, after all, my intent to spark debate.

 

[Thursday]

I'm entitled to my theological opinion, you reporting my post is not valid- Mary is the 'Co-Redemptrix' according to Catholic dogma.

Your post contained lies.

Catholic dogma is that God alone is to be worshiped.

Also:

970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."514

 

[HighCherub]

Your post contained lies.

Catholic dogma is that God alone is to be worshiped.

Catholic dogma can state whatever the priests want, it doesn't negate the problem that they have made Mary so commensurate to Christ that she may as well have been the one to be crucified and save God from even coming in the first place.

That's the argument I have presented, and instead of you debating it you've decided to be irrationally offensive, report me, and triumph the RCC's legal premise of the matter.

 

[Thursday]

Catholic dogma can state whatever the priests want, it doesn't negate the problem that they have made Mary so commensurate to Christ that she may as well have been the one to be crucified and save God from even coming in the first place.

That's the argument I have presented, and instead of you debating it you've decided to be irrationally offensive, report me, and triumph the RCC's legal premise of the matter.

Posting lies about what Catholics believe is not an argument.

 

[HighCherub]

Posting lies about what Catholics believe

I've done nothing of the sort

 

[prodromos]

I've done nothing of the sort

You've never been to a Catholic liturgy, have you?

 

[HighCherub]

You've never been to a Catholic liturgy, have you?

I know Catholic dogma and doctrine- for what it is, and not by the frivolous things that are thrown at Catholicism.
Sometimes I even defend certain things of Catholicism- after all, I'm a Calvinist, not an 'evangelical'- we aren't really in a steeped, stark contrast.
We're opposed in other ways.

 

[prodromos]

I know Catholic dogma and doctrine- for what it is, and not by the frivolous things that are thrown at Catholicism.
Sometimes I even defend certain things of Catholicism- after all, I'm a Calvinist, not an 'evangelical'- we aren't really in a steeped, stark contrast.
We're opposed in other ways.

The liturgy (or mass, as they call it for some odd reason) is where the rubber hits the road for Catholic dogma and doctrine, which is where you would find your claim that "The RCC does a lot to make Christ secondary in observance in general- he's in the back of the crowd of Mary, the Saints, the Popes and the priests." is utterly demolished.

 

[HighCherub]

The liturgy (or mass, as they call it for some odd reason) is where the rubber hits the road for Catholic dogma and doctrine, which is where you would find your claim that "The RCC does a lot to make Christ secondary in observance in general- he's in the back of the crowd of Mary, the Saints, the Popes and the priests." is utterly demolished.

According to your doctrine, Mary is

-Virginal
-Without Original Sin
-Ascended into Heaven
-A redeemer of man

You know who that sounds a whole lot like?
There was no point in giving birth to Christ when apparently she was fully sufficient herself.

That's the hole the Catholic Church has put itself in with having taken her significance as the Mother of God entirely too far.
Mary and Jesus are interchangeable in Catholic practice.

 

[prodromos]

According to your doctrine

I am not Catholic. I am Eastern Orthodox.

Mary is

-Virginal
-Without Original Sin
-Ascended into Heaven

Nope. According to Catholic doctrine only Christ ascended into heaven. Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, not the same thing.

-A redeemer of man

Co-Redemptrix

Co-Redemptrix is a title used by some Roman Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as a Catholic theological concept referring to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples. It has always been controversial and has never formed part of the dogma of the Church.​

You know who that sounds a whole lot like?

Like you have no idea what you are talking about?

Mary and Jesus are interchangeable in Catholic practice.

Nonsense. You should really limit yourself to talking about Calvinism. I presume you are actually knowledgeable about that subject.

 

[HighCherub]

I am not Catholic. I am Eastern Orthodox.

Nope. According to Catholic doctrine only Christ ascended into heaven. Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, not the same thing.

Co-Redemptrix

Co-Redemptrix is a title used by some Roman Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as a Catholic theological concept referring to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples. It has always been controversial and has never formed part of the dogma of the Church.​

Like you have no idea what you are talking about?

Nonsense. You should really limit yourself to talking about Calvinism. I presume you are actually knowledgeable about that subject.

You're just pulling at straws (Catholic or Orthodox, Ascend or Assume, Co-Redemptrix or *prime intercessor*), and using that as some quantum tunnel to say I don't know anything.

You should really limit yourself to other subjects being that you are so acutely sensitive about this one- I come on here, and the first thing that happens is a person calling me a liar and saying they 'reported me', followed by you telling me I don't know anything.
I think you all need to calm down

 

[prodromos]

Funny how I point out you are in error on several counts, and that somehow qualifies me as "acutely sensitive".

 

[mnorian]

Mod hat on

Thread has been permanently closed
by
Consensus of the Staff
for
Egregious flaming of Members, Churches and Congregations.
Flaming and Goading

• Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
• Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
• NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, smileys or post ratings which are clearly meant to goad. Quoting and then editing another members post to change the original meaning, commonly referred to as "fixed it for you" (FIFY), is considered goading.
• Offensive derogatory nicknames and egregious inflammatory comments about public figures may be considered goading.
• Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
• If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.

​