Archbishop Fulton Sheen famously said, “There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church…” He was referring, of course, not just to the institution, but to what the Catholic Church teaches.
As Anglicans prepare to enter into full communion by way of Anglicanorum coetibus, many have been studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and so have been immersed in the richness of our faith. Others, however, are considering a rejection of Anglicanorum coetibus because they disagree with the Church’s teaching about one thing or another. Of course, people are always free to accept or reject – no one will ever be forced into communion with the Holy See. But it’s essential, I believe, that in making such a decision – which can have eternal consequences – people need to have an understanding of the actual doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church.
Where to begin? Perhaps with the Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception. This doctrine seems to be a red flag to some people. I’ve heard the assertion that it represents “an unhealthy emphasis upon the maiden from Nazareth,” and that it’s a “Romish addition to the Faith.” Let’s have a look at it. This won’t be an exhaustive study, but it may help bring some clarity to the place of the Blessed Virgin Mary in God’s plan for our salvation.
First, it probably doesn’t need to be stated (but I will anyway!) what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not. It doesn’t refer to the conception of Christ in the womb of Mary, nor does it mean that Mary was somehow miraculously conceived. Mary was conceived in the normal way as the natural fruit of the marriage of Ss. Joachim and Anne, but at the moment of her conception she was preserved from original sin and its stain. As we know, the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve, became their bitter legacy to us. Original sin deprives us of sanctifying grace, and the stain of original sin corrupts our human nature. By God’s grace, given at the moment of Mary’s conception, she was preserved from these defects, and so from the first instant of her existence Mary had the fullness of sanctifying grace, and was unburdened by the corrupt nature caused by original sin. In this way, Mary becomes a “second Eve,” conceived in the same state of original purity as God intended for mankind.
Why would God do this? We state the reason every time we say the Creed. When we profess that Jesus Christ “was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,” we’re proclaiming that God took human flesh upon Himself. And from whom did He take that flesh? From Mary. So the question must be asked: would God – who can have no part in sin – take upon Himself that which was fallen, stained and corrupt? The answer is apparent: of course He wouldn't. So, as we can see already, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has as much to do with our Lord Jesus Christ and His Incarnation, as it does with the Blessed Virgin Mary. In fact, as we explore the various Marian dogmas, we see this consistently. What God does in and through Mary finds its ultimate purpose in Jesus Christ.
We can find a strong implicit reference to the Immaculate Conception in St. Luke 1:28. In the original Greek text, when the archangel Gabriel is addressing the young Virgin Mary, the word used is kecharitomene, which expresses a characteristic quality of Mary; namely, that she is “full of grace.” In some translations of scripture, Gabriel’s words are given as “highly favored one,” but that translation doesn’t capture the best and fullest meaning. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace,” and since the Greek has it in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was filled with grace in the past, and the effect of it continues into the present. If we accept St. Luke’s record of the archangel’s words as being accurate, it’s apparent that the grace received by Mary didn’t come about through Gabriel’s visit; rather, she was always filled with grace.
What about the words Mary spoke in her Magnificat, when she says, “my spirit rejoices in God my Savior…”? If she wasn’t a sinner, why would she need a Savior? Remember, Mary was a human being, a descendant of Adam and Eve. When she was conceived, she was certainly subject to the contracting of original sin, like all of us. But she was preserved from it – and how so? By grace. Mary was redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way; that is, by anticipation. There’s a helpful analogy which has been used by the Church to illustrate this: a man falls into a deep pit, and somebody reaches down and pulls him out. It would be true to say that the man was “saved” from the pit. A woman is walking by that same pit, and she’s about to fall in, but at that very moment someone reaches out and pulls her back from the edge. She also has been “saved” from the pit. And in fact, she didn’t even get dirty like the poor man did, who actually fell in. God, who is outside of time, applied Christ’s saving grace to Mary before she was stained by original sin, rather like the woman in the story who didn’t get dirty because she was prevented from falling into the pit. So yes, Mary had a Savior, and He is none other than Christ, her Son and her Lord.
Then we’ve got Romans 3:23, where St. Paul says that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” Did St. Paul mean this statement to be understood in an all-inclusive, no-one-excluded way? Well, let’s consider. First of all, we have to exclude Jesus Himself. Even though He was fully man, we know He didn’t sin. And what about a new-born baby? If sin is the deliberate disobedience to God’s law, could we say that a little baby has committed sin? I don’t think so. Although St. Paul was certainly stating the truth about mankind, his purpose in writing this section of Romans wasn’t to discuss the possibility of exceptions; rather he was constructing an important argument about law and grace, justification and redemption. If anybody wants to apply Romans 3:23 to Mary, then they’d have to apply it to babies and young children, too.
Sometimes people object to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception using this argument: if we’re saying Mary was without sin, then we’re making her equal to God, because only God is without sin. However, we need to remember that in the beginning, Adam and Eve were created without sin, but they weren’t equal to God. The angels were created without sin, and in fact, from Scripture we know that only some of the angels sinned – Lucifer and his friends – but that means a lot of angels never sinned. And they certainly are not equal to God.
Tragically, after the fall of our first parents, sin became commonplace and even expected. In fact, think about how often someone will say, after doing something wrong, “Well, I’m only human,” as though sin is perfectly natural, and somehow even defines humanity. Actually, sin is unnatural. We weren’t created to sin; we were created to know God, and to love Him, and to spend eternity with Him in heaven. In Mary, because of the Immaculate Conception, we see a human being as God intends us to be. What was maimed by the first Adam and Eve, is restored by the Second Adam and the Second Eve.
So what about the Immaculate Conception? It’s logical, it’s scriptural, and it’s part of God’s loving act of redemption.
Related posts:
J.M.J.
Dear Father thanks for a great overview of the Immaculate Conception! I often find people are indeed more opposed to what they THINK The Church teaches, than what it does.
For those who might be interested, Archbishop Sheen does a great job discussing it and much more at:
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/sheen.htm
Thanks for the link to Archbishop Sheen's teaching, Sean. We'll never go wrong listening to him. In fact, even in our protestant household when I was growing up, we always watched "Life Is Worth Living." Maybe the seeds of my own conversion were planted then!
Father, your text is just wonderfull, as it explains both briefly and clearly the reasons to believe in such a deep mystery. Would you mind if I translate it into French, in order to make it available for French-sepaking people on my own blog?
Thanks a lot
In Christo.
You're very kind, Don Henri, and I'm glad it's helpful. By all means, use it as you wish. Once I've put something on the blog, it's not mine anymore!
Father,
Thank you for a wonderful essay.
Some of our Eastern brethren have reservations about the IC. Those differences arise not from any denigration of the Theotokos, but from a disagreement concerning the Augustinian concept of original sin. Whether one sees it from the East or the West, the idea that Our Lady was a 'special vessel' for the incarnation of Christ is a universal concept.
Strange as it may seem, the most potent statement that I have encountered came from the lips of Martin Luther when he said that the Magnificat was perhaps the single most important piece of NT scripture. It is the point at which mankind, through the faith of a simple maiden, completed the new covenant by reaching back to our creator and saying “Thy will be done”, unquestionably.
The Son was the finest wheat, the spotless Lamb, offered by our creator for the holocaust; and our offering, in return, was Our Blessed Lady, equally as spotless.
And it is a very ancient belief. A form of it even found it's way into the Koran, clearly Mohammed was influenced by the Christian and quasi-Christian groups around him.
Well, this may be a decidedly "untheological" take on this doctrine, but . . .
As a former electronics engineering, we used to refer to something known as an "impedance matching" device. A somewhat familiar example are those Radio Shack gizmos, perhaps still around, that would take input from a 300 ohm input line and render it into a 75 ohm line, or whatever. "Ohms" are a measure of impedance, or the tendency of a electrical conductor to restrict the flow of alternating current through it. By using an impedance matching device, one can effect a smooth transition of energy from one medium into a conduit that otherwise would cause a bounce-back, or reflection of that energy back to its source as it enters a second medium of a different "nature". In biological terms, it's like something of a remedy against "immune reactions" to a transplant of desperately needed organs.
Enter – our dearest Lady, the Blessed Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of God-in-Christ. She was probably the most ultimate "Impedance-Match" entity in the universe, ever; enabling the entry of Eternity into Temporality, of Infinity into this Limited and Created Universe, and most significantly, of Sinlessness into a Sinful Cosmos. By virtue of her imputed and imparted sinlessness, through the preveniently-endowed merits of her Divine Son, a Holy God could enter this Mad-mad-mad-mad world without instantly encountering an utter mismatch between Himself and his Creation. Just think of it! What incredible mercies were mediated through this dear Lady's simple ontology, a nature that also enabled her history-changing "Fiat" to the angel's announcement of the immanent Holy Conception of the Son of God!
So her special conception becomes the enabling factor for the Conception of her Divine Son. Being herself free from corrupting effects of sin – and yet being fully a human creature – she provides a smooth channel for Holy Divinity to enter the realm of sinful creatures. Like a 300 ohm line to a 75 ohm line. And by this mysterious bit of divine engineering, we are saved. No wonder so many physicists are believers!
From reading some of the Fathers (probably Augustine, Rufinus, and/or Peter Chrysologus) on the "Apostles' Creed", at the words "born of the blessed Virgin", I gather that in the ancient Church they regarded the fact that Mary was "the Virgin" and "a Virgin" as symbolic of what we now call her Immaculate Conception. She was Virgin like a primeval forest, a New Start, the New Eve. (It's mysterious how only the Creator can create something new without destroying what was there).
Not sure if that's your "impedance matching", but it sounds like your on the right "wave-length"?
"Full of Grace" is more than an adjectival phrase but a Name. This is Mary's first title and all generations have called her blessed precisely because she was,is and will be "full of grace".
She did not earn this being "full of grace" by her own merits but by the merits of her Son (who wasn't even born yet at the time!).
Protestants barely realize that Christ's sacrifice at Calvary while happening at a point in time is actually beyond time. Thus the merits of the Holy Sacrifice may be applied before, now or after. Mary was the first one to receive this grace.
How the Immaculate Conception is possible is inextricably linked to how the Eucharist is possible! The Eucharist like the Immaculate Conception is beyond time. Jesus redeemed us, is redeeming us and will redeem us. Grace was with Mary, Grace is with Mary and Grace will be with Mary.
The Immaculate Conception is really not just about the maidservant Mary of Nazareth but more about all of us. It is a fulfilled promise that one day we will be full of grace too.
J.M.J.
On the subject of Doctrine, the following portion of Ineffabilis Deus which may be found at http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm does a great job of articulating the process by which another part of the teaching of the Church is carried out.
Read carefully the following portion. It makes clear that the Pope did not just one day wake up and decide he was going to declare our Blessed Mother Immaculate.
"…THE MIND OF THE BISHOPS
Although we knew the mind of the bishops from the petitions which we had received from them, namely, that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin be finally defined, nevertheless, on February 2, 1849,[27] we sent an Encyclical Letter from Gaeta to all our venerable brethren, the bishops of the Catholic world, that they should offer prayers to God and then tell us in writing what the piety and devotion of their faithful was in regard to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. We likewise inquired what the bishops themselves thought about defining this doctrine and what their wishes were in regard to making known with all possible solemnity our supreme judgment.
We were certainly filled with the greatest consolation when the replies of our venerable brethren came to us. For, replying to us with a most enthusiastic joy, exultation and zeal, they not only again confirmed their own singular piety toward the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, and that of the secular and religious clergy and of the faithful, but with one voice they even entreated us to define our supreme judgment and authority the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. In the meantime we were indeed filled with no less joy when, after a diligent examination, our venerable brethren, the cardinals of the special congregation and the theologians chosen by us as counselors (whom we mentioned above), asked with the same enthusiasm and fervor for the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God.
Consequently, following the examples of our predecessors, and desiring to proceed in the traditional manner, we announced and held a consistory, in which we addressed our brethren, the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. It was the greatest spiritual joy for us when we heard them ask us to promulgate the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God.[28]
Therefore, having full trust in the Lord that the opportune time had come for defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, which Holy Scripture, venerable Tradition, the constant mind of the Church, the desire of Catholic bishops and the faithful, and the memorable Acts and Constitutions of our predecessors, wonderfully illustrate and proclaim, and having most diligently considered all things, as we poured forth to God ceaseless and fervent prayers, we concluded that we should no longer delay in decreeing and defining by our supreme authority the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. And thus, we can satisfy the most holy desire of the Catholic world as well as our own devotion toward the most holy Virgin, and at the same time honor more and more the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord through his holy Mother — since whatever honor and praise are bestowed on the Mother redound to the Son…"
SWR
Notwithstanding the perplexities of the 'maculistas' (Vincenzo Bandello, thirty-sixth Master of the Friars Preachers, comes especially to mind): Decuit, Potuit, Fecit – as the Bl. John Duns Scotus said. Who was more devoted to the Immaculate Conception than the faithful of Our Lady's Dowry ? There's the very stuff of the patrimony of the Ecclesia Anglicana for you.