[metmom]

Funny, I see a lot of side stepping, but no one is answering the question.

I can reword it for a simple *Yes* or *No* answer.

Is the Immaculate Conception a necessary precondition (or prerequisite) for the Incarnation?

[Mad Dawg]

Funny. as with the Holy Sacrament, I see questions asked and answered and then complaints that they weren't answered.

I wrote that it certainly wasn't thought so in any de Fide way before 1854 OR we wouldn't have waited until 1854 to get the encyclical.

I said further that, as far as I know, the encyclical does not deal with the necessity of the Immaculate Conception for the Incarnation. I could be wrong.

I have repeatedly said that it is hard to discuss whether God could have done something a different way. Presumably whatever way He chooses is the best way.

You do know what de Fide means, right?

If pressed I would say I don't see how it could be necessary. I do see how it is "fitting." I don't see how we can meaningfully say, "God didn't have to do that."

[Quix]

For my region of the Proddy side . . .

OF COURSE NOT.

God is not that limited.

[Deo volente]

I'm with Mad Dawg on this one.

I don't know if God thought it was necessary, but He certainly decided it was fitting that Mary be immaculate, preserved from original sin.

Remember, the teaching is NOT that Mary didn't need a Savior. The teaching is that she was freed BEFOREHAND from sin and saved, in anticipation of the merits of her Son on the Cross.

That was the Franciscan opinion, I believe, for centuries. The question on how she could have been saved before the Redemption had been argued for a long time.

We were saved AFTER we had fallen into the pit (of original sin). Mary was saved BEFORE she could fall in, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God.