The reason for the Immaculate Conception?

AMDG · Mar 10, 2006

anawim said:
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.

QuantaCura · Mar 10, 2006

Here is an awesome lesson on Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant from Scott Hahn's site (Luke--Samual parallel is pretty amazing):

http://www.salvationhistory.com/online/intermediate/course2_lesson3.cfm

King of the Nations · Mar 10, 2006

anawim said:
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.

Bingo!

You must have been reading Mark Shea...

http://www.mark-shea.com/HE49.html

Why Marian Dogma Matters So Much

It's no secret that the promulgation of the doctrine of the Assumption (like the promulgation of other Marian doctrines) is a scandal to many non-Catholics. Why did the Church promulgate such teachings and not just leave well enough alone? The answer lies in the reason the Church promulgates Marian doctrine at all: namely, that Marian doctrines are always a commentary on Christ and/or the nature of the Church or the human person. So, for instance, the dogma of the Theotokos or "Mother of God" was defined in order to "build a hedge" around the doctrine that Christ is one divine person with two natures. not two persons, one human and one divine occupying a single head.

Likewise, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a commentary on the purity and holiness of the Church and the goodness of virginity and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception reflects the ancient biblical understanding of Christ's Bride the Church as spotless and without wrinkle. It is, in short, a commentary on the thoroughness of the saving work of Christ (and on the fundamental dignity of the human person).

Significantly, the Holy Spirit saw fit to emphasize the Immaculate Conception at just the moment in world history where the dignity of the origins of the human person was coming under severe assault from materialist philosophies which saw the human person as a mere product of wind and weather (Darwin), of economic and political forces (Marx), as divided by race and class (Herbert Spencer), or as a creature driven solely by sex and powerless against unconscious forces (Freud). The definition of the dogma directly contradicts these unbiblical views of the human person.

+ + +

Back later with more...

Greg

Spotty · Mar 10, 2006

Well, here's what I wrote to my friend in explanation. An explantion, by the way, he received very well.

Christ was conceived in a Virgin – Mary was conceived the ol’ fashioned way.

Christ was conceived Divine and sinless - Mary was conceived sinless.

Christ does not need a Savior – Mary did need a Savior.
As echoed in her Canticle in Luke when she rejoices “in God her Savior.” The only difference rests in how and why that salvation was given in the way it was. Being human, she certainly would have caught the stain of Adam’s sin, if it weren’t for her being saved in anticipation of the merits of Christ on Calvary, like us, but before us. This was done precisely because it was Mary who was chosen to carry God in her womb which can call for some purifying sanctification. Mary’s parents conceived a sinless human, while Mary herself conceived the sinless God. This is why the objection of an infinite regression is mute – Mary could be without sin, without her parents and their parents and their parents ad nauseum.

This was not a mid-19th century “Catholic invention.’
Though the issues were laid out and clearly defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854 in the encyclical Ineffabilis Deus, her sinlessness was arguably as strongly held as the Trinity from the earliest disciples to even Martin Luther and even the first Protestants. There was, however, a difference in timing: some believed she was conceived without sin, while the rest believed her freedom from it came when she was born. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas believed it came at her birth, while St. Bonaventure believed it was at conception and so on. No one (to my knowledge) in the early church never spelled out when it happened so much as they agreed that it did.

You’ve heard of “Hail Mary, full of grace.” This is the literal translation of Luke 1:28. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. Not by her own merits, or because she was just better than the rest of us on some exalted throne, but because for whatever reason, God chose this woman to bear Himself to the world. It could be argued that having His mother be a pure vessel wasn’t 100% necessary, but like the Ark of the Covenant made from the purest gold and carrying the Word of God inside, God in His desire chose to make Mary pure so the Word of God she carried would have the purest of Incarnations.

But wait, ye may say, what about Romans 3:23 which states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? When reading through Paul’s discourse we see not that he is speaking of specific individuals, but rather of tribes or groups of people: Jew, Greek, man, woman, slave, free ect. He begins the talk asking “what advantage has one who is a Jew.” So when he says “all” have sinned, the argument can be made that he’s referencing that all of humanity’s classes have fallen, but not necessarily all men. Case in point, what about babies or the unborn? What about Jesus himself? Contradictions would abound, but that’s why the context is not individually based, but rather collectively based.

-----

isshinwhat · Mar 10, 2006

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...

But that is indeed one of the points. By being born of a sinful woman, Mary had need of a Savior. Christ was born sinless by nature not only in regards to his Divinty, but in his humanity, as well. Christ is truly the firstborn of a new creation, born as we were all created for, with sanctifying grace from the moment of our conception, not because of a special act of redemption, but because of inheritance.

God Bless,

Neal

poppinskw · Mar 10, 2006

Was Jesus able to be tempted at all in those 40 days in the wilderness?, I know He never sinned and was spotless, but was He able to give into those temptations if He wanted to?

Les

Cosmic Charlie · Mar 10, 2006

Spotty said:
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 am about to demostrate one the primary problems with infalliability.

Why the Immaculate Conception ?

Who cares ?

I am told I have to beleive it, so I do. But its like reciting the Pledge of Allegience with a gun to you head. You do, but its meainingless.

I have no context for it, no thelology to back it up, no intellectual curiosity about it.

Why ?

I was told I had to beleive it with no choice so why bother with an explaination ?

QuantaCura · Mar 10, 2006

Cosmic Charlie said:
I am about to demostrate one the primary problems with infalliability.

Why the Immaculate Conception ?

Who cares ?

I am told I have to beleive it, so I do. But its like reciting the Pledge of Allegience with a gun to you head. You do, but its meainingless.

I have no context for it, no thelology to back it up, no intellectual curiosity about it.

Why ?

I was told I had to beleive it with no choice so why bother with an explaination ?

You have to believe in Jesus Christ too--you have no choice in that either. Is that meaningless because it's a necessary part of mainting one Lord and one faith?

Anyway, the rest of your questions are all answered here:

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

QuantaCura · Mar 10, 2006

John Paul II said this also:

"During his moments of trial Pius IX found support in Mary, to whom he was very devoted. In proclaiming the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, he reminded everyone that in the storms of human life the light of Christ shines brightly in the Blessed Virgin and is more powerful than sin and death. "

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20000903_beatification_en.html

Rising_Suns · Mar 10, 2006

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

I don't think Mary's birth can be understood without first understanding her death (or rather, her falling asleep); we must first take a step back to understand the greater purpose that God planned for Mary, after her passing from this life.

It is in this way, that the Immaculate Conception was the first step in preparing Mary for her eternal role as the Mother of humanity.

And, as always, it was all for Jesus.

Blessings,

-Davide

QuantaCura · Mar 10, 2006

Another good read on the Immaculate Conception:

Pius X, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum (On the Immaculate Conception) February 2, 1904

hsilgne · Mar 11, 2006

King of the Nations said:
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

:o
Ooooops! Thanks for taking the time to point that out Greg.

Sorry everyone. Especially Newman. I gave the wrong link.

Here is the correct link for Newmans explanation.

http://www.newman99.com/9.html

Peace.

poppinskw · Mar 11, 2006

Rising_Suns said:
I don't think Mary's birth can be understood without first understanding her death (or rather, her falling asleep); we must first take a step back to understand the greater purpose that God planned for Mary, after her passing from this life.

It is in this way, that the Immaculate Conception was the first step in preparing Mary for her eternal role as the Mother of humanity.

And, as always, it was all for Jesus.

Blessings,

-Davide

Thanks for that, I think I am seeing what you are saying now.. I guess I have the problem with knowing Mary as the Mother of humanity, and so that affects my thinking on this.

Les

Simon_Templar · Mar 11, 2006

QuantaCura said:
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

The point though is that the intervention to prevent the passage of original sin from one person to another IS an act of SALVATION. Therefore this act could not have been performed to prevent Jesus from receiving sin because it would mean that Jesus needed to be saved. The Savior can not himself have been saved from sin. The savior can't save himself. Therefor the chain of original sin had to be broken BEFORE Jesus, thus the chain of original sin was broken with Mary

Speaking as a protestant thats the best argument I've heard for the immaculate conception.

Simon_Templar · Mar 11, 2006

Cosmic Charlie said:
I am about to demostrate one the primary problems with infalliability.

Why the Immaculate Conception ?

Who cares ?

I am told I have to beleive it, so I do. But its like reciting the Pledge of Allegience with a gun to you head. You do, but its meainingless.

I have no context for it, no thelology to back it up, no intellectual curiosity about it.

Why ?

I was told I had to beleive it with no choice so why bother with an explaination ?

Because its obvious from your comments that you really don't believe it (if your comments honestly reflect your thoughts on the issue). There is a huge difference between agreeing to something, and believing it. Were I to come to the Catholic church, I could agree to the immaculate conception.. but I'm not really sure yet if I believe it.

The reason for the Immaculate Conception?

Tenderized for Christ

Rejoice always.

Well-Known Member

ilikemovies

Pro Deo et Patria

Senior Contributor

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated

Rejoice always.

Rejoice always.

'Christ's desolate heart is in need of comfort'

Rejoice always.

Frustrated in Hooterville.

Senior Contributor

Not all who wander are lost

Not all who wander are lost

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency