Immaculate Conception

Home Forums All Things Catholic Immaculate Conception

This topic contains 19 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  LARobert 2 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1606

    Victor
    Member

    [color=darkred:1wpdeaap]Was it necessary?
    If so, why?
    If not, why?[/color:1wpdeaap]

    #7908

    Bernardine
    Member

    [color=darkblue:c2r66own]This is a topic I need to do a lot more research on. I remember listening to the catholic radio station here in Moorhead, and it was a EWTN program, and the Immaculate Conception topic came up. The woman apologist was asked about the very words “Immaculate Conception” in regards to who came up with those exact words and how they originated. The apologist said she didn’t even know, and she seemed surprised she didn’t know. She told the caller to call back when father Mitch Pacwa was the host. So I have the same questions as you Victor. [/color:c2r66own]

    #7909

    Victor
    Member

    [quote:3c5vpli9][color=darkblue:3c5vpli9]This is a topic I need to do a lot more research on. I remember listening to the catholic radio station here in Moorhead, and it was a EWTN program, and the Immaculate Conception topic came up. The woman apologist was asked about the very words “Immaculate Conception” in regards to who came up with those exact words and how they originated. The apologist said she didn’t even know, and she seemed surprised she didn’t know. She told the caller to call back when father Mitch Pacwa was the host. So I have the same questions as you Victor. [/color:3c5vpli9][/quote:3c5vpli9]
    [color=darkred:3c5vpli9]Actually, I’m playing devil’s advocate in hopes of stirring our catholic noggins to think. I’m by no means a theologian but I think I know the answer. <img src=” title=”Wink” /> [/color:3c5vpli9]

    #7911

    Bernardine
    Member

    [color=darkblue:2gibmqbv]I see. I’ll be dedicating my free time this week in looking into the Immaculate Conception. There is so much to learn within the Catholic faith. Currently, I am studying the Eucharist and reading the last chapter of The Imitation of Christ. Great topic though, I am looking forward to hearing everyone’s replies on this. [/color:2gibmqbv]

    #7914

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    Benedict or LARobert will probably reply with a more thorough answer, but Mary is a type of the old Ark of the Covenant.

    She had to be made spotless and free from sin because she was to carry the New Covenant, Jesus.

    That’s a short, incomplete answer.

    #7917

    LARobert
    Participant

    First the term conception has been used differently through the ages. In St. Thomas Aquinas day they did not believe that life began until “quickening”, or the first time a woman felt the baby move or kick. It was believed that that was when the soul entered the body. The Church has never defined when the soul is “infused” into the body, but states that the earliest it could happen is at the point that the sperm and egg unite. The Church says that in order to have a perfect vessel for the advent of our Lord, he gave our Lady the singular privilige of being concieved without the stain of original sin, so we believe that from the moment of her conception, (that being the infusion of her soul into her body, by a special grace (anticipating the Sacrifice on the Cross) God by His power, not based on any merit of herself, preserved her from original sin in order to come into the world. Did He need to do it that way? Theologians have argued that. Did He do it that way? We do believe so, and so have Christians from the Earliest days of the Church.
    ______________________________________________________________

    In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

    “The Blessed Virgin Mary . . .” The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.

    “. . .in the first instance of her conception . . .” The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

    “. . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . .” The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

    “. . .by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race.” The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ’s redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.

    There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on earth to destroy. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-Anselmus (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence; God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her. Again it is remarked that a peculiar privilege was granted to the prophet Jeremiah and to St. John the Baptist. They were sanctified in their mother’s womb, because by their preaching they had a special share in the work of preparing the way for Christ. Consequently some much higher prerogative is due to Mary. (A treatise of P. Marchant, claiming for St. Joseph also the privilege of St. John, was placed on the Index in 1833.) Scotus says that “the perfect Mediator must, in some one case, have done the work of mediation most perfectly, which would not be unless there was some one person at least, in whose regard the wrath of God was anticipated and not merely appeased.”

    [url:i5mtpdfs]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm[/url:i5mtpdfs]

    #7918

    Benedict
    Member

    [quote:340td7et]Was it necessary?
    If so, why?
    If not, why?[/quote:340td7et]
    [quote:340td7et]She had to be made spotless and free from sin because she was to carry the New Covenant, Jesus.[/quote:340td7et]
    It was not necessary. God did not have to do it. It was appropriate. It was right. It was fitting. But it was not necessary. If God so chose, Jesus could have been born of the incarnation of the Devil himself.

    Instead, God granted Mary the inestimable grace that made her kecharitomene (“you who have been fully and perfectly graced”) because He wanted to. God the Father wanted a pure Ark for His Son. Jesus wanted His mother to have that grace. It is all the more beautiful for being chosen than forced, just like free will allows us to choose to love God instead of being forced.

    #7920

    Bernardine
    Member

    [b:nxmrt4k9]She’s Got A Way About Her[/b:nxmrt4k9]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otLlHv2JHTc
    [color=darkblue:nxmrt4k9]
    Absolutely beautiful.
    [/color:nxmrt4k9]

    #7923

    Victor
    Member

    [quote:2g0zfh3d][quote:2g0zfh3d]Was it necessary?
    If so, why?
    If not, why?[/quote:2g0zfh3d]
    [quote:2g0zfh3d]She had to be made spotless and free from sin because she was to carry the New Covenant, Jesus.[/quote:2g0zfh3d]
    It was not necessary. God did not have to do it. It was appropriate. It was right. It was fitting. But it was not necessary. If God so chose, Jesus could have been born of the incarnation of the Devil himself.

    Instead, God granted Mary the inestimable grace that made her kecharitomene (“you who have been fully and perfectly graced”) because He wanted to. God the Father wanted a pure Ark for His Son. Jesus wanted His mother to have that grace. It is all the more beautiful for being chosen than forced, just like free will allows us to choose to love God instead of being forced.[/quote:2g0zfh3d]

    [color=darkred:2g0zfh3d]Awesome! So the next question is why dogmatize something that is not “necessary”?

    This is something that was asked to me by an Eastern Orthodox to give you some context.[/color:2g0zfh3d]

    #7924

    Victor
    Member

    [quote:1qxy5ma4]First the term conception has been used differently through the ages. In St. Thomas Aquinas day they did not believe that life began until “quickening”, or the first time a woman felt the baby move or kick. It was believed that that was when the soul entered the body. The Church has never defined when the soul is “infused” into the body, but states that the earliest it could happen is at the point that the sperm and egg unite. The Church says that in order to have a perfect vessel for the advent of our Lord, he gave our Lady the singular privilige of being concieved without the stain of original sin, so we believe that from the moment of her conception, (that being the infusion of her soul into her body, by a special grace (anticipating the Sacrifice on the Cross) God by His power, not based on any merit of herself, preserved her from original sin in order to come into the world. Did He need to do it that way? Theologians have argued that. Did He do it that way? We do believe so, and so have Christians from the Earliest days of the Church.
    ______________________________________________________________

    In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

    “The Blessed Virgin Mary . . .” The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.

    “. . .in the first instance of her conception . . .” The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

    “. . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . .” The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

    “. . .by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race.” The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ’s redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.

    There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on earth to destroy. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-Anselmus (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence; God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her. Again it is remarked that a peculiar privilege was granted to the prophet Jeremiah and to St. John the Baptist. They were sanctified in their mother’s womb, because by their preaching they had a special share in the work of preparing the way for Christ. Consequently some much higher prerogative is due to Mary. (A treatise of P. Marchant, claiming for St. Joseph also the privilege of St. John, was placed on the Index in 1833.) Scotus says that “the perfect Mediator must, in some one case, have done the work of mediation most perfectly, which would not be unless there was some one person at least, in whose regard the wrath of God was anticipated and not merely appeased.”

    [url:1qxy5ma4]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm[/url:1qxy5ma4][/quote:1qxy5ma4]

    [color=darkred:1qxy5ma4]Thanks Robert. <img src=” title=”Smile” />
    But I’m not sure that answered my question. It’s deffinately a good clip to explain the IC, but doesn’t note if it was necessary or not.[/color:1qxy5ma4]

    #7925

    Victor
    Member

    [quote:fyeqg47f]Benedict or LARobert will probably reply with a more thorough answer, but Mary is a type of the old Ark of the Covenant.

    She had to be made spotless and free from sin because she was to carry the New Covenant, Jesus.

    That’s a short, incomplete answer.[/quote:fyeqg47f]

    [color=darkred:fyeqg47f]But was it necessary? :mrgreen: [/color:fyeqg47f]

    #7926

    LARobert
    Participant

    God could have done lots of things. Out of all history we do not know if there where other women who may have been good choices to be the Mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. He could have made the world without gravity, or any gravitational pull by the moon effecting the tidal movements in the ocean. The fact is that He did those things. They are all real, and the fact is that the Immacultate Conception is a reality.

    Most Orthodox, except for a few with a nasty bone to pick do not object to the concept of the Immaculate Conception, what they object to is the idea that the Pope, or any Council that does not include the Orthodox bishops of the world could or can pronounce any dogma. Many Orthodox priests and theologians I have spoken with believe that the Immaculate Conception is theologically sound. But that begs the question of why Dogmas are defined. The short answer is that there are times when long held beliefs in the Church that have not previously been defined dogmatically are questioned by groups or individuals. After the French Revolution there rose in Western Europe the errors of Rationalism, and later Modernism. Rationalist questioned anything that spoke of the supernatural, that included the existance of a soul and the existance of God. Our Lady has always been easy prey when it came to mocking the Church. As the long held beliefs of the Church where called into question, Pope Pius IX asked that the theological position and the history of that position be studied. Positions both pro and con where debated, and it was determined that the Church had held the Immaculate Conception to be true. The fact is the feast was first introduced in the East, (where Orthodoxy is strongest) and later migrated to the West was part of the discussion. In part to supress the Rationalist denyal of the Immaculate Conception, which many Catholics in Europe where being swayed by, (as at the time belief in the doctrine was not essential to remain a Catholic in good standing) it was determined that the dogma would be proclaimed.

    After the proclomation of the dogma there where numerous attacks on it. The Orthodox attacked not the dogma but the idea that the Pope could unilaterally proclaim a dogma. Many Orthodox took the position that if the Pope said it was so, Orthodoxy must reject it, (throwing the baby out with the bath-water.) Some Anglicans called it the “Immaculate Deception” because of Anti-Papal feelings. Most mainline Protestants where simply Anti-Catholic and Anti-Papal so rejected the dogma or simply ignored it thinking that the Church simply reaffirmed that our Lord was concieved without the intervention of a human father.

    If you have made it this far, then the Short answer is dogma is defined when there has been an attack (either directly or indirectly) on a belief that has been held by the Church.

    #7927

    Victor
    Member

    [quote:2kzme41p]God could have done lots of things. Out of all history we do not know if there where other women who may have been good choices to be the Mother of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. He could have made the world without gravity, or any gravitational pull by the moon effecting the tidal movements in the ocean. The fact is that He did those things. They are all real, and the fact is that the Immacultate Conception is a reality.

    Most Orthodox, except for a few with a nasty bone to pick do not object to the concept of the Immaculate Conception, what they object to is the idea that the Pope, or any Council that does not include the Orthodox bishops of the world could or can pronounce any dogma. Many Orthodox priests and theologians I have spoken with believe that the Immaculate Conception is theologically sound. But that begs the question of why Dogmas are defined. The short answer is that there are times when long held beliefs in the Church that have not previously been defined dogmatically are questioned by groups or individuals. After the French Revolution there rose in Western Europe the errors of Rationalism, and later Modernism. Rationalist questioned anything that spoke of the supernatural, that included the existance of a soul and the existance of God. Our Lady has always been easy prey when it came to mocking the Church. As the long held beliefs of the Church where called into question, Pope Pius IX asked that the theological position and the history of that position be studied. Positions both pro and con where debated, and it was determined that the Church had held the Immaculate Conception to be true. The fact is the feast was first introduced in the East, (where Orthodoxy is strongest) and later migrated to the West was part of the discussion. In part to supress the Rationalist denyal of the Immaculate Conception, which many Catholics in Europe where being swayed by, (as at the time belief in the doctrine was not essential to remain a Catholic in good standing) it was determined that the dogma would be proclaimed.

    After the proclomation of the dogma there where numerous attacks on it. The Orthodox attacked not the dogma but the idea that the Pope could unilaterally proclaim a dogma. Many Orthodox took the position that if the Pope said it was so, Orthodoxy must reject it, (throwing the baby out with the bath-water.) Some Anglicans called it the “Immaculate Deception” because of Anti-Papal feelings. Most mainline Protestants where simply Anti-Catholic and Anti-Papal so rejected the dogma or simply ignored it thinking that the Church simply reaffirmed that our Lord was concieved without the intervention of a human father.

    If you have made it this far, then the Short answer is dogma is defined when there has been an attack (either directly or indirectly) on a belief that has been held by the Church.[/quote:2kzme41p]

    [color=darkred:2kzme41p]If I understood you correctly, you are saying that it’s not necessary, but that it is true. So unnessary (doesn’t affect your salvation) beliefs can be proclaimed as dogma, right?[/color:2kzme41p]

    #7928

    LARobert
    Participant

    We do need to believe it, because God did it that way. Even though He could have done it another way.

    If we simply speculated on all the different ways that God could have brought about salvation to mankind there could be countless ways that He may have done it, but the fact remains there was only one way He did do it. As Catholics we are bound to believe that through a singular act of His mercy to all mankind, God did what He did for our Lady in order to have a perfect and pure means of accomplishing His goal of offering salvation to mankind. All the other possible means of how he could have done it are moot, because He did not use those means.

    #7929

    Benedict
    Member

    [quote:8jhnnjyy]So unnessary (doesn’t affect your salvation) beliefs can be proclaimed as dogma, right?[/quote:8jhnnjyy]Seems a rather Protestant way of defining necessary. How necessary is it to believe a truth given us by God?

    Mary’s Immaculate Conception is truth. Furthermore, it is revealed truth because human reasoning alone cannot arrive at it as a necessary conclusion. Finally, it is formally defined truth promulgated by the Pope.

    This means God did it, God told us He did it, and God assured us He did it.

    #7930

    Victor
    Member

    [quote:hy619k1g]We do need to believe it, because God did it that way. Even though He could have done it another way.

    If we simply speculated on all the different ways that God could have brought about salvation to mankind there could be countless ways that He may have done it, but the fact remains there was only one way He did do it. As Catholics we are bound to believe that through a singular act of His mercy to all mankind, God did what He did for our Lady in order to have a perfect and pure means of accomplishing His goal of offering salvation to mankind. All the other possible means of how he could have done it are moot, because He did not use those means.[/quote:hy619k1g]

    [color=darkred:hy619k1g]There is no doubt in my mind that it is something Catholics must believe. This isn’t an attempt to explore all the possibilities or even to cast any doubt on anyone’s mind, but rather to see if the one possibility (Mary’s IC) was necessary. I was heading in the direction of pointing out that God is not limited to things “necessary” in regards to doctrine/dogma.

    In the East (Eastern Orthodox), they have something they call “pious belief” to which we have an equivalent of in the West, but it differs. Good examples of these are their Mariological beliefs, which are all universally held but which have never been dogmatized. The Orthodox Church has [i:hy619k1g][b:hy619k1g]absolutely no [/b:hy619k1g][/i:hy619k1g]Marian dogmas. So it is their belief that only things “necessary” should be dogmatized. There is even a sort of freedom in which a EO can doubt and disbelieve in certain Marian realities and still be in good standing. This isn’t something we share with them. We are still bound to believe certain things, even if they aren’t dogma.

    I found that very interesting and came here to get everyone’s thoughts. <img src=” title=”Smile” /> [/color:hy619k1g]

    #7931

    Victor
    Member

    [quote:3ktdtor4]Seems a rather Protestant way of defining necessary. [/quote:3ktdtor4]
    [color=darkred:3ktdtor4]Great minds think alike…. :mrgreen:
    That’s exactly what I pointed out to the him.[/color:3ktdtor4]
    [quote:3ktdtor4]How necessary is it to believe a truth given us by God?[/quote:3ktdtor4]
    [color=darkred:3ktdtor4]As necessary as any other truth. For they reflect God’s goodness, holiness, will, and attributes.[/color:3ktdtor4]
    [quote:3ktdtor4]Mary’s Immaculate Conception is truth. Furthermore, it is revealed truth because human reasoning alone cannot arrive at it as a necessary conclusion. Finally, it is formally defined truth promulgated by the Pope.

    This means God did it, God told us He did it, and God assured us He did it.[/quote:3ktdtor4]
    [color=darkred:3ktdtor4]Good enough reason for me.[/color:3ktdtor4]

    #7932

    weather
    Member

    The Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic dogma that asserts that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved by God from the stain of original sin at the time of her own conception. Specifically, the dogma says she was not afflicted by the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, but was instead filled with grace by God, and furthermore lived a life completely free from sin. It is commonly confused with the doctrine of the incarnation and virgin birth, though the two deal with separate subjects.

    #10538

    A little clarity please…does the RC believe that Mary was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies and then dwell there as well when she was presented at the temple?

    #10540

    LARobert
    Participant
    "houseofsaul":33rvdm3g wrote:
    A little clarity please…does the RC believe that Mary was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies and then dwell there as well when she was presented at the temple?[/quote:33rvdm3g]
    There are writings of some Saints and visionaries which do state that, however there is nothing official which binds a Catholic to believe or not believe one way or the other on the matter.

    The Church allows us to determine for ourselves if we accept the content of approved private revelation, but does not impose it as binding.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.