The reason for the Immaculate Conception?

[Spotty]

Hey all,

I've posted this to Robert Sungenis, but was seeking your input as well.

What do you see as the best logical solution to understanding why the Immaculate Conception was chosen when the Protestant rebuttal would consist of the following:

"Solution: Jesus Himself was miraculously protected from being polluted by sin while He was inside Mary's womb. If God was capable of protecting Mary from sin, would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? Therefore, Mary being sinless is neither necessary nor Biblical."

I certainly don't doubt the dogma given the authority of the Church, but in attempting to explain it to my friends on a logical basis can be more tricky. The above answer seems to be the best rebuttal to the dogma I've heard, and I can see the logic behind it. So how do we avoid an infinite regression of sinlessness through Mary's parents, grandparents, ect, as well as how do we get around the argument that if God could keep Mary sinless, why not just keep Jesus sinless?

Any thoughts? Any takers? Anyone? Talk with you soon...

-Spotty

 

[Markh]

Put basically,

I think it is because the incarnation was predestined before the fall, God already had Mary in mind to be the mother of His Son before the fall and so that continued ever though the fall happend- something like that,


I think the point is explained here:

http://www.faith.org.uk/Publications/Magazines/Jan03/Jan03MaryInTheOneEconomyOfSalvation.htm

 

[willard3]

Thanks soooooo much for the link, Markh. There are a lot of people at my school (including some close friends) who vehemently attack Mary.
Just a couple weeks ago, we had a speaker come in to a chapel service who blasted the Rosary and other "Marydolatry" based on one random woman's misguided comments (she said something about "we can't get everything from Jesus").

 

[AMDG]

The reason for the Immaculate Conception is Jesus. And I really beg to differ with ANYONE who says that it isn't Biblical--because it IS. As the Bible tells us nurmerous times, God is all holy and those with sin cannot even see Him and live (sin and God cannot co-exist together.) My gosh, at the burning bush Moses even had to remove his shoes because the ground where he stood was holy and God had to shield Moses' eyes when God's glory passed by, yet we have Jesus (God) residing in the womb of His mother for those months before His birth? And how about that word "overshadow" when Mary is told that the Holy Spirit will "overshadow" her. Well, isn't that the same word that is used when God "overshadows" the Ark back in Moses' time? Oh wait, the Bible DOES refer to Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.

So Blessed Virgin Mary, is like how God created Eve--without sin, but the reason Mary was "saved" was because of Jesus and His salvation of the world.

 

[QuantaCura]

Most people look at this backwards. It wasn't to protect Jesus, but to protect Mary. Remember, we are all born out of grace. When we are Baptised grace is restored to our souls. We need this grace to be able to be in the presence of God--which is why those who die out of grace do not experience the beatic vision. Mary, however, did not have the opportunity to be Baptized, Jesus had not instituted the sacrament yet. If Mary had not been immaculately conceived, she would not have been able to have the intimate union she had with both the Holy Spirit and Jesus in her womb. This is also the reason why the unbaptised or those in a state of mortal sin cannot receive Jesus in Holy Communion.

 

[QuantaCura]

One of the best explanations, in my opinion, is the actual papal definition:


Blessed Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (The Immaculate Conception) December 8, 1854 [Apostolic Constitution]


Also, check my profile picture--I think it's a cool picture of the Imamculate Conception and it's definition

 

[anawim]

Hey all,

I've posted this to Robert Sungenis, but was seeking your input as well.

What do you see as the best logical solution to understanding why the Immaculate Conception was chosen when the Protestant rebuttal would consist of the following:

"Solution: Jesus Himself was miraculously protected from being polluted by sin while He was inside Mary's womb. If God was capable of protecting Mary from sin, would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? Therefore, Mary being sinless is neither necessary nor Biblical."

I certainly don't doubt the dogma given the authority of the Church, but in attempting to explain it to my friends on a logical basis can be more tricky. The above answer seems to be the best rebuttal to the dogma I've heard, and I can see the logic behind it. So how do we avoid an infinite regression of sinlessness through Mary's parents, grandparents, ect, as well as how do we get around the argument that if God could keep Mary sinless, why not just keep Jesus sinless?

Any thoughts? Any takers? Anyone? Talk with you soon...

-Spotty

But that's not what the church teaches. It's not because of Jesus receiving flesh from Mary. Mary was conceived immaculately because, as Ineffabilis Deus states that it was "wholly fitting" that the mother of Jesus should be free from sin. It was because Jesus deserved the best, not because He himself needed it. He was worth having the best mother possible.

 

[Axion]

"Solution: Jesus Himself was miraculously protected from being polluted by sin while He was inside Mary's womb. If God was capable of protecting Mary from sin, would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? Therefore, Mary being sinless is neither necessary nor Biblical."

IAny thoughts? Any takers? Anyone? Talk with you soon...

-Spotty

Actually this argument doesn't work because Mary gave her flesh and Human nature to Jesus.

If Mary had passed a sinful flesh and human nature to Jesus, JESUS would have been (if only for a fraction of a second) a sinner, in need of redemption. And the Redeemer cannot Himself be in need of redemption. God cannot be a sinner.

Mary, however CAN be redeemed and made sinless, and hence able to pass a sinless, though real and true humanity to Jesus.

The definition of the Immaculate Conception is often confused by people, because it did NOT teach specifically that Mary was sinless. This was already the consistent teaching of the Church (Eastern and Western) down the ages. What it taught was WHEN and HOW Mary was made sinless. And it was most fitting that this was done at her Conception.

 

[QuantaCura]

Actually this argument doesn't work because Mary gave her flesh and Human nature to Jesus.

Yes, but St. Anne gave her flesh to Mary, and St. Anne had a sinful nature which is why I think we shouldn't use that argument. There are much better ones out there

 

[seayhere]

If you could create your own mother wouldn't you have made her perfect. That's my answer. God has the power and he created his own mother, so he made her perfect.

 

[hsilgne]

I like Nemwans explanation.

http://www.newman99.com/14.html

Peace to you!

 

[King of the Nations]

Most people look at this backwards. It wasn't to protect Jesus, but to protect Mary. Remember, we are all born out of grace. When we are Baptised grace is restored to our souls. We need this grace to be able to be in the presence of God--which is why those who die out of grace do not experience the beatic vision. Mary, however, did not have the opportunity to be Baptized, Jesus had not instituted the sacrament yet.

Nor did Moses or Elijah and they both somehow made it to Heaven anyway. The grace of Christ was "pre-offered" to everyone in the OT as it was to Mary.

Greg

 

[King of the Nations]

But that's not what the church teaches. It's not because of Jesus receiving flesh from Mary. Mary was conceived immaculately because, as Ineffabilis Deus states that it was "wholly fitting" that the mother of Jesus should be free from sin. It was because Jesus deserved the best, not because He himself needed it. He was worth having the best mother possible.

Well......Yeah...... But that line of reasoning ("Mary was preserved free from all stain of sin so that Jesus could have "the best mother possible", especially when, as you say, he didn't "need" it) strikes me as a bit "elitest", I guess. And also...what's the word...utilitarian?

Obviously God was not too terribly concerned with providing his Son with "the best" of everything seeing as how Jesus was born in a cave and later treated like scum and nailed to a cross....Know what I mean?

Greg

 

[King of the Nations]

If you could create your own mother wouldn't you have made her perfect. That's my answer. God has the power and he created his own mother, so he made her perfect.

Does God not have the power to create us all sinless???



Greg

 

[anawim]

Well......Yeah...... But that line of reasoning ("Mary was preserved free from all stain of sin so that Jesus could have "the best mother possible", especially when, as you say, he didn't "need" it) strikes me as a bit "elitest", I guess. And also...what's the word...utilitarian?

Obviously God was not too terribly concerned with providing his Son with "the best" of everything seeing as how Jesus was born in a cave and later treated like scum and nailed to a cross....Know what I mean?

Greg

Well why don't you try reading
Ineffabilis Deus, and let me know if you get the same understanding. Maybe I didn't read it the same way it was intended.

 

[King of the Nations]

I like Nemwans explanation.

http://www.newman99.com/14.html

Peace to you!

Maybe I read it too fast, but I only saw him eliminate the argument that Mary "had to have sinned" because of Rom 3:23. Which is not the same thing as saying that she had to have remained sinless or without the stain of original sin.

Greg

 

[King of the Nations]

Well why don't you try reading
Ineffabilis Deus, and let me know if you get the same understanding. Maybe I didn't read it the same way it was intended.

I will definitely try and do that here within the next 24 hours. But in the meantime, is your focus on the phrase "wholly fitting"? If so, I believe what that's referring to is the nature of Mary and Jesus' "joint mission" as the new Adam and new Eve, rather than "It was wholly fitting for such a splendid king to have the best possible mother." Know what I mean?

More after I read the document...

Greg

 

[King of the Nations]

Hey all,

I've posted this to Robert Sungenis, but was seeking your input as well.

What do you see as the best logical solution to understanding why the Immaculate Conception was chosen when the Protestant rebuttal would consist of the following:

"Solution: Jesus Himself was miraculously protected from being polluted by sin while He was inside Mary's womb. If God was capable of protecting Mary from sin, would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? Therefore, Mary being sinless is neither necessary nor Biblical."

I certainly don't doubt the dogma given the authority of the Church, but in attempting to explain it to my friends on a logical basis can be more tricky. The above answer seems to be the best rebuttal to the dogma I've heard, and I can see the logic behind it. So how do we avoid an infinite regression of sinlessness through Mary's parents, grandparents, ect, as well as how do we get around the argument that if God could keep Mary sinless, why not just keep Jesus sinless?

Any thoughts? Any takers? Anyone? Talk with you soon...

-Spotty

Before anyone gets their shorts in too much of a bind over finding some precise, comprehensive, humanly definable reason for the Immaculate Conception, I would encourage you to take a step back and realize that not everything that God does has to be comprehensively understood (or even understood at all, really) by man.

Look, for example, at the Bible. Why 73 books? Why not 50 or 10? (Or 400?) Why so many things written in it that seem to have so little relevance? There is a reason for this and other otherwise unexplainable dogmas, but that reason does not necessarily, as I said, have to be completely understandable to us humans. In some cases, it is sufficient for us to know that it's true. Period.

Now, that having been said, I think that we can understand the reasoning for the IC a little more deeply than simply "It's true". Mark's article, I think, started touching on it. But I need to do some checking on some things first and will be back later to elaborate...

Greg

 

[poppinskw]

Hey all,

I've posted this to Robert Sungenis, but was seeking your input as well.

What do you see as the best logical solution to understanding why the Immaculate Conception was chosen when the Protestant rebuttal would consist of the following:

"Solution: Jesus Himself was miraculously protected from being polluted by sin while He was inside Mary's womb. If God was capable of protecting Mary from sin, would He not be able to protect Jesus from sin? Therefore, Mary being sinless is neither necessary nor Biblical."

I certainly don't doubt the dogma given the authority of the Church, but in attempting to explain it to my friends on a logical basis can be more tricky. The above answer seems to be the best rebuttal to the dogma I've heard, and I can see the logic behind it. So how do we avoid an infinite regression of sinlessness through Mary's parents, grandparents, ect, as well as how do we get around the argument that if God could keep Mary sinless, why not just keep Jesus sinless?

Any thoughts? Any takers? Anyone? Talk with you soon...

-Spotty

I have never been able to understand why the need for the Immaculate conception...

Jesus was born without sin because He is God, yet He was tested with every temptation known to mankind, satan threw them all at Him for those 40 days in the wilderness, yet He never gave in to any. He must have been able to give in to those temptations if He chose, otherwise how could He overcome and defeat all them all. He was fully God and He was fully man.

I just dont know But then this is a whole new thing for me to try and understand.

Les

 

[anawim]

I have never been able to understand why the need for the Immaculate conception...

Jesus was born without sin because He is God, yet He was tested with every temptation known to mankind, satan threw them all at Him for those 40 days in the wilderness, yet He never gave in to any. He must have been able to give in to those temptations if He chose, otherwise how could He overcome and defeat all them all. He was fully God and He was fully man.

I just dont know But then this is a whole new thing for me to try and understand.

Les

It's interesting to note that the IC was declared a dogma within 10 years of Darwin's "Origins of Species". Whereas Mary's Immaculate Conception points us back to the garden and what will be restored to us and more, Darwin's secular outlook points us back to a primordial soup.

Every truth about Mary teaches a truth about Jesus.