Why do we believe in the Immaculate Conception?

In discussing why we believe in the Immaculate Conception, it’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about in the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain — the meaning of "immaculate" being “without stain”. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a fallen nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

While in the West the doctrine has been taught somewhat negatively – the emphasis being on Mary’s sinlessness - the East has tended to put the accent instead on her abundant holiness. The colloquial term for her is Panagia, the All-Holy; for everything in her is holy.

Although this doctrine is not explicitly stated in Scripture (as indeed the Trinity is not explicitly stated), there is much implicit evidence that the New Testament Church believed in the sinlessness and holiness of the Mother of God.

The primary implicit reference can be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is more accurate than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which tend to render the expression "highly favoured daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favoured daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. 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 a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, but rather it extended over the whole of her life. She must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."

However, this is not to imply that Mary had no need of a saviour. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way - by anticipation.

If we consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: she was not simply taken out of the pit; she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become subject to original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Saviour than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner.

St. Luke also provides us with further evidence that the early Church believed in the sinlessness of Mary. In the first chapter of his gospel, he goes to great pains to recount the event of the Visitation in parallel terms to the recovery of the Ark of the Covenant by David in 2 Sam 6. The following contrasts are notable:

1) 2 Sam 6,2 “So David arose and went…set out for Baala of Judah” Lk 1,39 “And Mary rising up in those days, went…to a town of Judah”

2) 2 Sam 6,9 “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” Lk 1,43 “And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

3) 2 Sam 6,14 “And David danced with all his might before the Lord” Lk 1,44 “the infant in my womb leaped for joy.”

4) 2 Sam 6,11 “ And the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months.” Lk 1,56 “And Mary abode with her about three months.”

When taken in conjunction with Gabriel’s earlier promise to Mary that “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee.” (Lk 1,35) in similar language to that describing the descent of the Shekinah on the ark, it is clear that St. Luke considers Mary to be the fulfilment of the type of the Ark of the Covenant.

In Luke’s mind she is the ark of the New Covenant. Just as the old ark contained the Word of God written on stone, the bread from heaven in the form of manna, and the priestly staff of Aaron; so the new ark contains the Word of God enfleshed, the true bread of heaven, and the high priest of the New Covenant.

Up until its disappearance 500 years earlier the ark had been the holiest thing in all creation – even to touch it or look into it was to bring death or plagues on non-Levites. Similarly then, the ark of the New Covenant would have been viewed as the holiest created being by the early Jewish Christians. Mary’s holiness was by the specific design of heaven, just as the old ark was given as a specific design from heaven.

This understanding of Mary as the ark is not just limited to the Lucan tradition. We also find Johannine understanding of this teaching in the Apocalypse. If we omit the medieval chapter and verse numberings, we see that John’s vision, following the judgement of Jerusalem and the Old Covenant, reveals:

“And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his covenant was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:” Apoc. 11,19-12,1

While some commentators see in the figure of the woman a corporate type of Israel or the Church, these can only be secondary meanings as the same vision reveals two other figures which both have primary individual identities: Satan and the woman’s child – Jesus Christ:

Apoc 12,3 “And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: Apoc 12,9 “And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan.”

Apoc 12,5 “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.”

Thus many fathers of the Church as well as recent Popes have clearly identified the ark/woman as Mary, the Holy Mother of God. This should not be surprising as John is here recapitulating the whole of revelation. Not only is he portraying the breaking in of the New Covenant, but of the new creation itself. The early chapters of Genesis where we see the man and woman in conflict with the serpent at the beginning of the old creation, are now recapitulated with the new Adam and the new Eve in conflict with that same serpent, though this time with positive results. Revelation has come full circle with the final triumph of God over the devil through the woman and her seed as first foretold in Genesis 3,15.

This is why early fathers such as St Irenaeus, St Ephraim, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine could clearly identify Mary as the new Eve as well as the Ark of the Covenant. For in a way that Eve in her disobedience could only be physically the mother of all the living, Mary is now revealed as the true mother of all the living in Jesus Christ:

Apoc 12,17 “And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

It is only reasonable to conclude, then, that just as the first Eve was created without sin and filled with sanctifying grace, so the new Eve who was to “untie the knot of disobedience” wrought by the first, should be also so conceived. Or, as Cardinal Newman put it:

“Now, can we refuse to see that, according to these Fathers, who are earliest of the early, Mary was a typical woman like Eve, that both were endued with special gifts of grace, and that Mary succeeded where Eve failed?” Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception. Cardinal John Henry Newman.

Although arguments from authority can often be the weakest form of argument, as Catholics, it is worth finally pointing out that the ultimate reason for believing in the Immaculate Conception is that this doctrine has been infallibly defined as being revealed by God, and as such our salvation depends on adhering to it:

"Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honour of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "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 Saviour 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." Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart." Ineffabilis Deus, Bl. Pope Pius IX

***Not exactly the actions of a sinless man.***

Exactly. And look how Paul describes his pre-converted position...

"though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness, under the law blameless."

Phillipians 3

"...as to righteousness, under the law blameless."

Apparently one can be "blameless" but still participate in the death of Christians!

Paul was guilty of inadvertent sin.

Paul may call himself "blameless" under The Law, and he appeared to be so to himself at the time. He sent innocent men and women to their deaths. The Law says "Thou shalt not kill." And also "Thou shalt not bear false witness." The Law says to not persecute the weak and lowly. Paul did all of those things. But he did so because The Law also permits, even demands, the death of blasphemers. Before his eyes were opened by grace, Paul considered Christians to be blasphemers, sentenced to die under The Law. Only once he understood that they were, in fact, preaching the Truth did he realize that he had done wrong.
His sin was inadvertent.
The Old Testament tells us all about inadvertent or unintentional sins, done without even knowing one has committed them, and gives perscriptions for atonement for them. By contrast, it does not spell out any very clear way to atone for intentional sin.

Anyway, the Catholics have done away with the concept of inadvertent or unintentional sin (despite the fact that it is quite explicit in the Bible), and categorizes only "original sin" contracted at conception by being a descendant of Adam and Eve, and "actual sin", which is to say, intentional sin. I believe that Orthodoxy holds similar views.
I will let the Protestants speak for themselves: is there inadvertent or unintentional sin in Protestant belief?

"I Tim 3:16-17. Summary: States the bible is sufficient for everything you need, makes one complete, no mention of oral tradition."

Wrong on several counts:

1) The text you mean to refer to is 2 Tim, not 1 Tim.

2) Nowhere does it mention "sufficient", rather it says "ophelimos" which means "useful"

3) If you read it in context, Paul is talking about the Scriptures which Timothy knew "from infancy", so of course he is referring to the OT here - the NT hadn't been written in Timothy's infancy. That you would try and claim "sufficiency" from this text is spurious; that you would claim it for the OT alone is just un-Christian.

1 Timothy, which you cited incorrectly, does indeed reveal what is the pillar and ground of the truth:

3,15 "..ekklesia theou zoontos, stylos kai edraioma tes aletheias."

"the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

The Catholic equates Mary as the new Eve. Eve was the bride of Adam. Therefore, Mary the new Eve, must be the bride of Jesus Christ, the new Adam. That is where their typology leads them.

Typological formulations are not exact. They are suggestive.

In any case, if we're in agreement about the Church being the bride of Christ, then I wonder which marriage is it, in which the bride *does not take the mother of her husband as her own*. The last words of Christ on the cross to St. John--significantly not named but called "the disciple whom Jesus loved"—give Mary to that disciple.

If Jesus loves you, and I submit that He does, then it is to you that He gives His own mother. If you can't accept the more "advanced" Marian doctrines, that's one thing, but to refuse even the concept of Mary as your mother-in-law is to do violence to the very idea of the Bride of Christ.

***Blameless = sinless; unless one wishes to adopt the position that there are sins that carry with them no blame.***

Blameless may also mean a person who seeks forgivness for their sins as soon as they stumble.

Paul says that because of Christ's death on our behalf and by the power of God WE can alos be presented blameless to God on judgement day...

"And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,"

- Col 1

If anything is clear from the above verse it is that blamelessness does not mean "sinless". The people described, while guilty of evil deeds, can still be considered "holy and blameless" through the death of Christ on their behalf.

"By the same token, Blessed Mary was born mortal -- yet the Church in the West holds that she never died."

That is not true. We hold that she died, but that she did not suffer the corruption of the grave.

"The consequence of the original sin is dying, not sinning."

It is more than just dying the natural death, it is the loss of grace as well which leads to the second death.

"If anything, I would say that it is more likely Mary chose not to sin."

We would agree with this but say that it was due to grace that she was able to choose not to sin.

Thanks very much for pointing out my typo. What it amounts to is that you deny 2 tim 3:16 speaks to the sufficiency of all scripture, which I affirm, and that you affirm the Tradition of the church as being authoritative, which I deny. I can see that further discussion is useless because our points of view are so radically different.

"48 When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You."

How do you read and interpret these verses? Do you agree with my assertion?"

This is not sin - this is ignorance born of the finite human condition. Not to know something which was beyond her ability to know, can hardly be described as sinful.

We do not pretend that she was anything other than fully human.

Mary is not my mother, nor my mother in law. She is but a faithful servant. I do not pray to her. I do not worship her. I do not give her any of the Glory that is due Christ.

The fact that you use Eve to support your claim on Mary and reject the most basic of typology that cannot possibly pertain to Mary is willfull blindness to the Truth.

Eve came forth from Adam while God put him to sleep. She was the helpmeet and bride of Adam. All these things the Church fulfills in its entirety with regard to Christ, and none of them is fulfilled in Mary.

JM

"If she were made sinless from the moment of her conception, her holiness wouldn't be the supreme example of her humanity."

Eve was sinless from the moment of her conception/creation - are you saying that her humanity was somehow deficient because of this?

The contrast between Eve and Mary surely lies in the fact that both were sinless yet one disobeyed, and the other had to undo the knot of the earlier disobedience by her faith and obedience?

***If you read it in context, Paul is talking about the Scriptures which Timothy knew "from infancy", so of course he is referring to the OT here - the NT hadn't been written in Timothy's infancy. That you would try and claim "sufficiency" from this text is spurious; that you would claim it for the OT alone is just un-Christian***

Incorrect. Paul, in 2 Tim also the teachings of Jesus as "scripture". Care to see a reference?

I'm not sure that I understand the distinction, or that I know what the "Augustinian constuct" of original sin is.

I think that original sin is the condemnation to death, "the way of all flesh", and that one of the "ways of flesh" is a tendency for the flesh to lead the immortal spirit into acts of corruption (actual sin or intentional sin).
So, to put it in broad life terms, the debt for original, contracted sin is paid for by physical death. Original sin does not carry with it the sense of moral blame: it is simply a fact, and a mystery. After death, the soul faces the consequences of its intentional sins, unless those sins are forgiven by grace.

I really don't know what Augustine had to say on the matter, but that's my belief. Did he differ?

***And as members of the Church we are espoused to Christ. Do you not believe that Mary is a member of the Church?***

I do believe it. But you cannot Biblically prove that she is any sort of archtypal "New Eve". At least not in any way distinct from here membership in the true "Bride of Christ" the Church.

***so shall your sons marry you,****

Clearly allegorical - Jerusalem and Jews. Now check this out...

" 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
" 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
" 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
" 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
" 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

You don't marry your mother. Marrying your mother is lumped together with the abominations of homosexuality and bestiality and is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE for use as a metaphor to describe Jesus relationship to Mary. 1st century readers would have vomitted in response to reading such an allegation. Such an offense was worth of death.

Mary was married to Joseph.

Jesus remained unmarried all his life so that it might be understood that his true bride was the Church, (and by Church I mean all who put their faith in Christ and are saved by his grace.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.