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

"Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

Does that mean you believe children and the retarded get a "free pass"?

If so, it's just a matter of semantics, isn't it? You don't believe children to be "guilty" of anything that would keep them fromt he kingdom, and neither do we. We say they have not actual sins and you say they do, but God doesn't really count them as such.

Seems the same at the end of the day to me.

***"free pass"?***

Everyone who believes in Jesus gets a "free pass"

Rom 3

"There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are "justified freely" by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

***If so, it's just a matter of semantics, isn't it? You don't believe children to be "guilty" of anything that would keep them fromt he kingdom***

No, I do believe that children are born in a state of sinfulness that would render them unable to live with a holy God eternally - BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD.

***but God doesn't really count them as such.***

God counted their sinfulness not against them, but against Christ who payed the price of their "free pass" so to speak.

"All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them" - 2 Cor 5

***Seems the same at the end of the day to me.***

You say they have no sin. I say that the Bible says they have sin (Ps 51) and it is forgiven for Christ's sake. God does this for them because they don't posess the faculties to do it themselves.

I think we have a radically different idea of what sin is. I have never understood this before when talking with Catholics.

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

I don't know if being immortal is a "deficiency." Not knowing sin, and not having propensity to sin, Eve's holiness before disobeying was not an effort of any proportion; it was not any of her doing. Mary's holiness, by contrast, considering her mortality and human nature with propensity to sin but choosing not to, is a monumental achievement. There is simply no comparison. Comparing Mary to Eve dimnishes Theotokos.

Alpheus(Cleophas/Clophas) & Mary(the other Mary from Mt 27:56, 61 28:1, Jn 19:25) begot James the less, Joseph and Jude

Where does it say that Alpheus and Mary were the parents of James the less, Joseph and Jude?

Please point this out to me unless it just a tradition.

JH :)

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

Yes, because she was cleansed of all sin (for the second time -- first being at Annunciation), at her death.

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

Isn't that true for all who receive Grace?

***Mary's worrying where Jesus was and what had happened to him cannot possibly be sinful.***

I agree with you in that, if it is sin, it is no great sin. It is a sin born of love. But look more closely at the passage...

"Every year His parents traveled to Jerusalem for the Passover Festival. When He was 12 years old, they went up according to the custom of the festival. After those days were over, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but His parents did not know it. Assuming He was in the traveling party, they went a day's journey. Then they began looking for Him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem to search for Him. After three days, they found Him in the temple complex sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all those who heard Him were astounded at His understanding and His answers. When His parents saw Him, they were astonished, and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for You." "Why were you searching for Me?" He asked them. "Didn't you know that I must be involved in my Father's interests?" But they did not understand what He said to them. Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them. His mother kept all these things in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and with people."

Don't you hear in his words a gentle rebuke of their obtuseness in requiring him to explain this? "Once here, did you think I should so quickly leave? Let ordinary worshippers be content to keep the feast and be gone; but is this all you have learned of me?"

What He says they should have known, He must have given them ground to know. She tells Him of the sorrow with which his "father" and she had sought him. He speaks of no Father but One, saying, in effect, My Father has not been seeking me; I have been with Him all this time.

(I have taken portions of this from the JFB Commentary)

Not sure what you mean. Which argument? That "brothers" mean also cousins, or that in certain cultures to this date the same is true, and always has been?

What are the odds that the scripture means cousins over the literal reading of brethern?

JH :)

"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)"

I don't disagree with you that some of the written accounts had already achieved the status of scripture by the time Paul and Peter were writing their epistles - say 55-65 A.D.

All I question is whether this would have been the case when Timothy was an infant, which could have been prior to Jesus' public ministry commencing.

Thanks for the reference though, because this is very useful for countering the claim of some that the Gospels were written a long time after the epistles! ;)

"Don't you hear in his words a gentle rebuke of their obtuseness in requiring him to explain this?"

I'll admit that that would be one possible interpretation, depending on tone, body language etc. etc. which unfortunately we don't have available.

I think, however, that a rebuke of his parents by a 12 year old would be tantamount to a sin on behalf of the child. Remember that according to the law and custom, a 12 year old was still very much tied to his mother's apron strings and he would normally only be about his father's business when he had attained the age of 13.

I have always believed the Bible teaches that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Mark 3:32
...Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

Matt 13:55-58
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

As we can see in Matt 13:57, Jesus' brothers and sisters were unbelievers at that point. Thus Jesus gave over the care of His believing mother to John the disciple at the cross.

I only know that believing in the God preserved Word will always keep one out of trouble. When we begin taking the ideas of men ahead of God's Word we potentially fall under the same condemnation as the Scribes and Pharisees.

Matt 15:6-9
...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Elevating a woman to sinless status is unbiblical.

Rom 3:23
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

According to the Bible, this applies to Mary!

P.S. Mary was indeed blessed above all woman to be chosen as the mother of Jesus. We should all honor her faith in God because she responded positively to His call. Praise God that she, being of the line of David, retained her virginity and thus could be used to usher into the world her savior Jesus Christ.

All I question is whether this would have been the case when Timothy was an infant, which could have been prior to Jesus' public ministry commencing.

So is it your conclusion from this, that it's only the Old Testament scripture that are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness?

JH :)

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.