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

By the same token, Blessed Mary was born mortal -- yet the Church in the West holds that she never died. If she didn't die, she is divine. Yet, we know that she called her Son her Savior.

This isn't what the Church teaches. Mary died, rose from the dead by the Mercy of Christ, and was reunited with her body and taken into Heaven. Elijah was taken while alive, and some hold St. John was taken as well.

Not dying is not the same as being divine.

"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."

But what about WITHOUT belief in Christ? Can a man or woman be holy and blameless in spite of his/her sins without belief in Christ?

Job did not believe in Christ when he was blameless.
Zecharaiah and Elizabeth did not believe in Christ when she was blameless.
He had not been conceived yet, let alone born, when they lived (assuming for the sake of discussion that Job was an actual person and not a purely literary figure).

***then it is to you that He gives His own mother.***

And I fully accept Mary in her Biblical role.

But it is a poor marraige that requires the mother-in-law as a mediator between the bride and the groom!

(Even John the Baptist had the sense to back off once he got the bride and groom together...

"The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease." - John 3)

***But what about WITHOUT belief in Christ?***

The OT saints look forward to Christ. We look back to Christ.

***Job did not believe in Christ when he was blameless. ***

Job WAS looking forward to Christ and the resurrection.

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:"
- Job 19

***Zecharaiah and Elizabeth did not believe in Christ***

They too were looking forward to Christ. That's why Elizebeth was overjoyed to hear of Mary's news. And Zechariah knew of the promise of the coming Messiah.

Remember when in his song he said...

"...He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago)"

They, like Simeon and Anna, other righteous and devout people of the day, were "waiting for the consolation of Israel". Luke 2:25

I agree.

All we know from the scripture is that Joeseph and Mary did not have sex until after Jesus was born. There is nothing "unchaste" or defiling about sex within marriage. The explanation in this article is fairly complicated and does require special knowledge not only about the birth of Mary - which is never addressed in the Bible - but also about the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus in the New Testament.

We Cnristians must believe that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus. The focus is on the miraculous birth of Jesus, that His Father is God and He is the only sinless human being. The facts of the marriage of Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus should be a "disputable matter," not a divisive issue.

In a real nutshell...St. Augustine taught that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin (in fact through the act of procreation). Augustine wrote in Latin in the 4th century and seems to have been influenced by Tertulian. When his works were translated into Greek around the 14th century, the East rejected the formulation of inherited guilt, retaining the by then tradtitional belief in the East that only the consequences of Adam's sin were inherited, that each person's sins were theirs alone. The doctrine of original sin as seen by the Augustinians is the basis of the Roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

If you went to Catholic school a long time ago, the nuns used to teach that a tiny baby which died before baptism couldn't go to heaven because of original sin. The baby's soul went to a place called "Limbo". There was even a prayer for the souls in Limbo. It was a place where otherwise sinless souls went because a soul corrupted by original sin couldn't be in the prescence of God, though this place was not Hell. Original sin was viewed as a blot on the soul, very much a sin carried by a human being even though that human being had nothing to do with it. The soul was washed clean in Baptism.

The Church in the East has never held these views on original sin.

What it amounts to is that you deny 2 tim 3:16 speaks to the sufficiency of all scripture, which I affirm,

On what basis do you affirm this? What do the actual verses say?

You must have missed this part of my post

I can see that further discussion is useless because our points of view are so radically different.

I am not going to convince you that you are incorrect, nor you me.

***Yes please. Is it 2,12?***

I'm sorry. I was mistaken. It is actually from 1 Tim 5

"Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."

Specifically. "The laborer deserves his wages." which is no where in the OT or Apocrapha.

But is is in Luke 10:7
"... for the laborer deserves his wages."

And with a slight variation in Matt 10:10
"...for the laborer deserves his food."

Paul calls the teachings of Jesus as recorded by Luke and Matthew "Scripture". Not suprising in light of the fact that Peter considered Paul's writings "Scripture". (2 Pet 3:16)

Is the Spirit with the church or is it given to the members of the church? Romans 5:5

In the meantime, I'm going to go on counting each of you who believe in the virgin birth, the sinless life and the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ and His resurrection as fellow children of God, fully reconciled to God by God, and *my* brothers and sisters in Him.

***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), ***

Whoah! Boy, did you guys ever let yoursleves off the hook!

Do you ever wonder if God is going to judge you based on what the Catholic church says or based on what the Bible says?

"That is different from actually committing the sin."

But the punishment is the same. He died for the sins of the world. He (willingly) bore those sins. When He went to the cross and took on the sins of the world, he also accepted the consequences- the wrath of the Father, intense anguish, and physical death.

***What is "sin"?***

Considering the length to which the Bible goes in describing it, I think it would be hard to give a brief answer. Perhaps Pauls word are best...

Romans 3:23
"...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

When we "fall short of the glory of God".

When we "fall short of the glory of God".

OK. So you feel there is no question of intent in determining our guilt for sin?

By "intent" I mean some taking into consideration a person's capacity to understand and to undertake what he feels is "good" behavior in a situation.

Vicomte13: Does a mother sin when she tells her child not to run away?

No, this would not normally be a sin for a mother. But in your example, the child would definitely be considered sinful for running off and not telling his parents. Since we know that Christ could not have sinned, it eliminates Him as the cause of conflict. Therefore, Mary must have been the cause of conflict.

I also think it interesting that Mary was the one who was doing the supposed discipline. Where was Joseph during this time? Wasn't the father responsible for his children in those days? Was Mary usurping the role of Joseph (i.e. sinning)?

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.