Why Catholics Believe in the Immaculate Conception

CatholicEducation.org ^ | April 2003 | David M. Bristow

[thecodont]

Prayers sent.

[PeevedPatriot]

Prayers for you and your loved one :)

[PeevedPatriot]

"Proceed to worship,..." is a quote from a Pope from the 1850s.

Not quite. It's a TRANSLATION not a direct quote written in English. I remember researching that line years ago. Couldn't find it in any reputable full translations of the document. Only found "worship" in phrases from antiCatholic articles. It is more properly translated "venerate." Just to be sure, I found a latin version of the document. The words used aren't the same as those used for worship of God.

Our vocabulary has not changed THAT radically in 150 years.

Our use of the word "worship" has changed somewhat. While we generally use it to reference our adoration of God, sometimes we still apply it toward others (eg, hero worship). When applied toward a human being we generally understand that the person isn't being worshiped as God but is being much admired or esteemed for particular qualities or actions.

Regarding your Duck principle, you're relying on external observations to judge matters taking place on the interior. Or are you saying we're worshiping hunks of stone?

Let's get that one out of the way, shall we? No, we aren't worshiping marble images. Yes, Catholics agree that worship of images/statues is forbidden and is idolatrous. But we do not believe that images themselves are forbidden. On the contrary we use them to help us order our hearts and minds toward things of God.

If you're tempted to say images ARE forbidden, I'd refer you to Ex 25:18 where God commands Moses to make golden cherubim and position them over the the mercy seat. He even said He'd meet him there. In Ex 28:31-34 we find that Aaron's priestly vestments are decorated with images. In Nm 21:8-9 we find God commanding Moses to make a bronze serpent. That serpent is broken only when it's used as an idol (2 Kg 18:4). In chapter 6 of 1 Kg we find Solomon building a temple filled with statues, which God hallows in 1 Kg 8:11. Would he have done that if the statues were idols? We can see from scripture that statues aren't forbidden only their improper use.

So, you may ask, is kneeling before an image proper use? No, not if you're rendering homage to the stone itself. But if you're kneeling in prayer as you contemplate what's represented in the image, that's hardly idolatry. Is it idolatry for me to kneel with my scriptures and read them as I pray? If not, why would it be idolatry for me to kneel and gaze on a representation of a person or scene from the gospel and contemplate a visual representation of what I've read in the gospel? I do this often before a crucifix. Or statues of Mary and Joseph holding the Christ Child. I'll probably kneel before a manger scene in the coming weeks.

If every knee shall bend at the mention of Christ's name, I reserve the right to bend the knee in contemplation of his mysteries! If that causes some to consider me an idolator, so be it. Scripture tells us that we give an account for our every word. Those who accuse Catholics of idolatry will render account for that. And we who use images for recollection or meditative prayer will account for every word of our prayer. If it's idolatrous, God will deal with us severely.

I will continue to kneel in front of a statue of Mary and ask God for the gifts to serve him as she did. To accept Him when it's inconvenient. Dangerous. Not in line with what I'd planned. Just as she did. If that makes me an idolator according to your Duck principle, so be it. I'm more concerned with God's assessment of me than Ockham's. Or yours.

Peace be with you.

[blackpacific]

The Immaculate Conception needs no defense. The big question for those who struggle with the fact that Sacred Scripture is not explicit about this mystery is this; why would it be better if she were “full of sin” like the rest of us? Then, maybe Gabriel would have addressed her “hey sinner, God wants to rent your womb”, which seems to be the position one often hears from those who reject the Magister but accept the textbook. Maybe a well thought out presentation of why this is better for God and for us needs to be shown before we waste further energy in this regard?

By the way, she IS the Spirit of Christmas! Merry Christmas to all!

[blackpacific]

The Immaculate Conception needs no defense. The big question for those who struggle with the fact that Sacred Scripture is not explicit about this mystery is this; why would it be better if she were “full of sin” like the rest of us? Then, maybe Gabriel would have addressed her “hey sinner, God wants to rent your womb”, which seems to be the position one often hears from those who reject the Magister but accept the textbook. Maybe a well thought out presentation of why this is better for God and for us needs to be shown before we waste further energy in this regard?

By the way, she IS the Spirit of Christmas! Merry Christmas to all!

[boatbums]

we sin because we are sinners, not we are sinners because we sin.

I'm not so sure about that. Scripture is pretty clear that baptism removes sin. Acts 2:38 and 22:16 is what immediately comes to mind. If my sins were removed when I was born again in baptism, then did I not after that become a sinner because I sin?

It was the humanity of Jesus - without a sin nature because he was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit - as well as his Deity that he was NOT a sinner. The verses that state all mankind is under the curse of sin, doesn't apply to the God/Man.

Sorry, but I don't see your logic. If Jesus was human then he had a possibility to sin if He chose to. Indeed scripture tells us he was tempted but didn't sin (Hb 4:15). And James (1:13) tells us God cannot be tempted, therefore we know it was the human nature not the deity of Christ that was tempted.

I disagree that Jesus could have sinned. He did not have a "sin nature" because he was not conceived in sin. I was just reading this section about Luther's views on the Immaculate Conception, and remembered he spoke on this topic. From http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-infusion-of-marys-soul-was.html:

How is one freed from original sin? Luther explains:

Accordingly, God ordained that no one would be saved unless he was without sin. And for this reason God gave commandments in which He forbade sin, desiring that we in turn should be godly and righteous as Adam was before his sin. But since we could not do this, He gave Christ, His only begotten Son, into death for us so that by His blood He might deliver and free us from this original sin, and from all the sins that issue from original sin. Thus Christ teaches us to believe in Him and call upon Him for grace, through which this sin is cleansed [Carver translation, p. 3].

For if we are baptized and believe, we receive grace, which fights against the evil inclination in us and drives and stamps out original sin. Then there arise in us good and honorable motivations to humility, chastity, kindness, and every virtue, and then good works are also done with an eager heart. All this is effected by grace, which we received in Baptism through faith in [Carver translation, p. 3].

Towards the end of the sermon, Luther branches out into speculative theology asking and answering two questions. First: "If original sin is taken away in Baptism, why do you say that it remains and that it always has to be contended with?" He provides Augustine's answer:

Augustine answers this by saying that original sin is forgiven in Baptism not in such a way that it no longer exists, but that God will no longer take account of it. Just as the Samaritan in Luke 10:34–35 did not instantly cure the wounded man when he poured oil and wine into his wounds, but took him to the inn and had him taken care of by the innkeeper until he should come again. In the same way, every sin is taken away by Baptism, yet only in the sense that God does not take account of them. thus they are not gone, but they must keep being healed, even as they have begun to be healed. Yet when we die we will all be perfectly healed. So whenever you feel that you are being incited to impatience, arrogance, unchastity, and other sins, know then that you are feeling the deadly arrows of original sin which the devil fired at Adam’s flesh, from which yours also is descended. then promptly take thought how to resist these arrows, and pray to the Lord Jesus that this sin would not take the upper hand and overcome you, but rather be overcome by His grace [Carver translation, p.4].

[Syncro]

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed (offspring) and hers; He (she) will crush your head while you strike at his (her) heel." - Genesis 3:15

I can't find that exact wording of Gen 3:15 in a parallel Bible, does it come from a Catholic translation?

Using the KJV:

15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I see how putting in (offspring) makes sense, but not the (she) and (her)

Jesus will crush (bruise) satan's head, and he (satan) will strike at (bruise)Jesus' heel.

A much more deadly blow to satan than to Jesus.

Satan will be destroyed from that head wound, while Jesus is only "wounded" for a time and recovers quite well.

Satan will be destroyed eventually, the "strike at" and "bruise" refers to the Crucifixion which of course did not destroy Jesus as satan desired.

Rather it was Victory for Jesus and Christians as He rose from the grave.

It doesn't make sense scripturaly to change He (Jesus) to she--Mary.

Likewise satan striking at Jesus' heel changed to "her" heel.

Also the Vatican itself speaks of Mary being "preserved from the contagion of guilt since conception."

Not since her birth.

Which explains why Mary said my "spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior."

Another factor to think about is Mary's marriage to Joseph.

I hardly think that God would not allow Joeseph and Mary to, as a married couple, abstain from acts of procreation.

The Bible has very strong instructions for married couples.

Yes, Mary was special as the one chosen to carry Jesus in her womb, but after that she still had a long married life.

(We won't go into her birthing more children at this time...)

[boatbums]

With all due respect, ROE, I disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on the place of Mary in the life of Christians on earth today. Jesus' last words were, "It is finished." (John 19:30). But it was before that, "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." (John 19:26,27) Mary was taken under the care of the Apostle John, and we know from early writings that he lived in Ephesus. There is nothing in his writings nor the other NT books that give Mary the place of being the "mother" of all the Apostles there, much less all Christians.

I believe that we are to hold to the doctrines that can be proved by Scripture - its the main reason we have been given them by God. Though, I cannot tell anyone what they can or cannot believe about a truth that is not found in Scripture, by the same token, I don't think a religious group can develop a doctrine not backed up by Scripture and make it binding upon all Christians under threat of anathema. Granted, that doesn't mean that much anymore to some people, but there was a time when it WAS a forced obligation to believe just because the hierarchy deemed it so. There were additional doctrines developed the same way and, over time, they became burdensome on the people much like the traditions of the Pharisees over the religious Jews in the first century A.D. Those traditions superseded the laws of God and were condemned by Jesus for the burdens they placed on the faithful and distractions from the true message of God.

My main contention with threads like this is that they attempt to show superiority of Roman Catholicism over all other Christian traditions including the Greek Orthodox - who have just as much of a legacy of antiquity as Catholics claim they have - and label all those who disagree with them as "misguided", "misinformed" and wrong. It isn't about who is right or wrong, but a matter of personal faith that should go both ways.

I wish you a joyous, peaceful and merry Christmas.

[boatbums]

First of all, it is clear from those passages that Mary did not fully comprehend what Gabriel was saying (she was "troubled" by the conversation). Secondly, Gabriel makes a reference to two things: grace and the Third Person of the Holy Trinity (the "Holy Ghost" or the "Holy Spirit," in Luke 1:35) which are surely the earliest chronological references to these things in Scripture. In other words, God had clearly seen fit to work through the Holy Spirit to bestow a degree of sanctification upon Mary that at the time hadn't even been given to the most devout historical figures of Israel.

It wasn't the "first" nor earliest reference to either God's grace or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. As early as Genesis 6:8, we find, "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD." In Exodus 33:17, "And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name." In fact, all throughout the Old Testament there are loads of references to God's grace.

The same thing with the Holy Spirit. Genesis 1:2 says, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." God said his "Spirit would not shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh" (Genesis 6:3) Other passages speak of certain people being "filled with the Spirit of God" (Exodus 31:3) The Spirit of God "rested" upon those specially selected of Him as His prophets as well as His judges and some of the kings of Israel (see Numbers 11, the book of Judges and I Samuel and I and II Kings).

King David pleaded with God in Psalm 51:11, "Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.". In those days before Jesus came, the Holy Spirit of God came and went upon special people for special purposes. It wasn't until the start of the church age that the Holy Spirit would indwell a believer and be "sealed until the day of redemption" (Ephesians 4:30). He would not leave or be taken away from those who had been born again. He is "the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." (Ephesians 1:14).

So, I certainly agree that the incarnation is the first and ONLY time that Almighty God became flesh and dwelt among us and the "degree of sanctification" that was bestowed upon Mary WAS wonderful and remarkable, and she should be honored and praised for her faithfulness and obedience, but it doesn't mean that she was born sinless, nor that she even had to be in order to become the mother of our Savior. Everything the Bible does say about her and her role is true and should be accepted by Christians, but there is no need to invent or imagine extraneous events or acts of God in order to justify the honor due her. I think it takes away from the glory and worship that Christ alone is to be given and that could never be the will of God.

[boatbums]

You are thinking as people think — have you ever tried to think as God thinks. He could see into the future — Christ dying on the Cross — when the origianl sin of Mary was forgiven IN ADVANCE of her conception. Thus we have the Immaculate Conception.

I'm thinking as God has chosen to tell us to think because he told us in Holy Scripture. I don't think something important would have been omitted from it and only revealed to fallible humans. I also do not think that Mary's virginity wasn't enough to provide the type of womb God would use to be born as a man. Her womb was a human woman's womb, probably having experienced her monthly cycle for years - shedding the blood lining of her uterus just like most all women do. If it is only her "womb" that had to be pure, then why did her human soul also have to be kept from ever sinning? She was born as any other human was born, with a human father and mother, doing what men and women do to get pregnant. Those born that way inherit the sin nature from Adam. There's no getting around that and there was no need for the mother of the Messiah to be "sinless", just a virgin of the house of David.

See, this is the real problem I have been talking about. We get in these long convoluted discussions over something God NEVER said happened. If you want to believe in it, go ahead, just don't tell those who don't that they are wrong, not "real" Christians, "missing out", "misguided" or "misinformed". There is no real ground to stand on.

[boatbums]

How are you going to reason with Christ at the moment of your death that you did not accept the Immaculate Conception of his Mother? God is perfect mercy while you are alive and perfect justice the MOMENT you die.

See, exactly what I was just saying! Your religion makes belief in this doctrine MANDATORY in order to be saved. If God didn't see fit to TELL us to believe in Mary's sinlessness as part of the Gospel of salvation, then who are y'all to demand that it is? I think some people have no real idea about what the grace of God is all about.

[wardaddy]

Im southron baptist and was always taught the immaculate conception

Isnt it fairly universal in Christendom?

[CTrent1564]

wardaddy:

Not to be writing this with any sense of disrepect, but are you referring to the Virgin Birth of Christ, i.e., by the power of the Holy Spirit was Incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man [from the Nicene Creed]. You are correct, this would indeed be a universal belief of all Christendom.

Immaculate Conception refers to Mary being given a special Grace by God when she was conceived thru the normal human relations between her Father and Mother.

[Salvation]

http://resources.sainteds.com/showmedia.asp?media=../sermons/homily/2012-12-08-Homily%20Fr%20Gary.mp3&ExtraInfo=0&BaseDir=../sermons/homily

[wardaddy]

Quite right....immaculate conception is quite a lot more than merely acknowledgement of the virgin birth indeed

[Dajjal]

bumpus ad summum

[susej]

If Mary didn’t have any sin, then why did she make a sin offering as was required by the law?

[Salvation]

She was also of Jewish descent. Did you forget?

[CommerceComet]

Are you still not getting it? The Immaculate Conception is about Jesus Christ — have an immaculate womb for him.

Maybe it you that is not getting it. How is God's nature (in any of His three persons) polluted by His surroundings? Are you suggesting that Jesus' power and grace are insufficient to overcome a normal human womb?