Questions: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the Immaculate Conception
July 31, 2008
Is Adam’s guilt passed forward by the conjugal act, or are all born into an environment of sin that keeps them from living as Christ lived? Does the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception minimize the element of free will inherent in Mary’s acceptance of Gabriel’s message, the voluntary action that made her an active participant in the mystery? Might she have been cleansed of sin at the Annunciation? Why or why not?
Advertisement
17 Comments
Comments are closed.
Is Adam’s guilt passed forward by the conjugal act, or are all born into an environment of sin that keeps them from living as Christ lived?
The former (given that Christ was brought up in an environment full of sinners, it could hardly be the latter).
Does the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception minimize the element of free will inherent in Mary’s acceptance of Gabriel’s message, the voluntary action that made her an active participant in the mystery?
Given that original sin is generally taken to limit our freedom, I’d say just the opposite.
Might she have been cleansed of sin at the Annunciation?
Anything’s possible, I guess.
Many of the Fathers believed the cleansing from original sin, in Mary’s case, occurred at some time. Some thought this occured at the Annunciation. Aquinas and others thought it happened at the creation of the soul, (passive conception) which was some time after the active (bodily) conception which was a result of the conjugal love of Joachim and Anna.
For this reason, the Church on point moved away from speaking of the
Immaculate Conception and attempted to encourage the phrase Conception of the Immaculate Virgin
Is Adam’s guilt passed forward by the conjugal act, or are all born into an environment of sin that keeps them from living as Christ lived?
This seems to me to not only be a false dichotomy, but also non-inclusive of other possibilities of the transmission of original sin (on this, see St. Anselm who moves beyond the Augustinian notion of transmission by conjugal relations). The latter option was forcibly forwarded by Karl Rahner, which is an insufficient but perhaps a necessary condition of the reality of sin in the world.
Does the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception minimize the element of free will inherent in Mary’s acceptance of Gabriel’s message, the voluntary action that made her an active participant in the mystery?
Why would the choice somehow be conditioned by being free of sin? Would her exercise of freedom in rejecting the plan really constitute a sin on her part? You seem to be conflating two questions here: 1. How does freedom of sin affect free will?; 2. Did Mary have to accept her task under pain of sin?
Might she have been cleansed of sin at the Annunciation?
Same as the above response. You need to clarify how sin is related to free will in general, and then you need to clarify how Mary’s acceptance/rejection in itself would involve sin.
I would like to know if the Orthodox view it as a false dichotomy, but I hope we have someone from that faith speak to that question. My understanding is that the Orthodox believe while all carry the consequences of Adam’s sin (the foundation for our sinful environment) only Adam and Eve are guilty of original sin. If this is the Catholic position, then what are the differences with the Orthodox concerning original sin? I suspect the disagreements are far more than cultural or semantic.
Jonathan,
While I, too, am interested in the apparent differences between the Latin and Orthodox traditions on original sin, we can still address the issue of false dichotomy and exclusivity of complementary/other possibilities without invoking the Eastern traditions.
The notion of original sin being passed on through the conjugal act is nothing short of a gnostic contamination of Christianity’s view of the goodness of material creation. It is associated with the popular conception and fixation of/on the “dirtiness” of sex, and relates to misguided rituals such as post-menstrual cleansing.
If original sin is “passed on through the conjugal act,” when human beings are cloned, as they certainly will be, would that make them free from original sin? Come to think of it, there is no “conjugal act” when children are conceived by in-vitro fertilization.
At Lourdes, the Blessed Virgin identified herself to Bernadette as the Immaculate Conception. If I remember correctly, she said it in French, which Bernadette did not understand. Bernadette repeated it to the priest as she had heard it without understanding what it meant. That was 4 years after the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and confirmation of it.
Mark, David,
Right. The Augustinian notion of original sin being passed through the conjugal act seems untenable. Anselm (followed by Aquinas) was helpful in shifting original sin to a more juridical matter, away from the flesh.
In the light of evolution, original is of course not maintainable. Not to mention that, if it were true, ‘the fall’ happening 5 minutes into the whole story would have warranted a product recall. When you guys speak of ‘the fallen world’, it’d help if it hadn’t been the initial models who fell. To believe in a literal Adam & Eve seems odd in 2008, but then again, so do all supernatural claims. Which is also why one really cannot have a conversation about belief, when the two sides do not share the same supernatural claims, be it Zeus knocking up Leda, virgins remaining ‘intact’ through birth or getting virgins in paradise.
Gerald,
The views you present here conflict with the clear teaching of the church.
Blackadder,
The relevant text here is the solemn dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pius IX:
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 Savior 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.
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine . . . is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
Why the overkill? Isn’t it enough to say something is true? Is it really necessary to say God revealed it and everyone must believe it “firmly and constantly”?
I had a religion teacher in high school who asserted something, the class questioned it, he did research and gave more reasons for the assertion, again the class raised objections, and his final word was, “Well, I can’t explain it, but you have to believe it.”
It is very difficult to imagine what original sin might be, let alone cope with the idea that everyone is concevied with it, with one exception.
Dvaid Nickol,
The Pope is not a high school religion teacher, his office grants him infallibility. He was so clear in his definition here so that we would be sure in our knowledge. We know with the same certainty that the Blessed Mother was free from original sin that we have that Jesus died for our sins. The pope wanted to be clear here that this truth was revealed by God, and is more certain therefore than mere scientific knowedge.
By the way, you should be made aware that to deny the doctrine of original sin is the heresy of pelagianism.
If you struggle with these doctrines, then you struggle with some of the core doctrines of the Chirstian Faith. You should speak to a good priest about your doubts so that he can work to shepherd you towards the truth.
Gerald,
I have a question – do you still consider yourself Catholic? I’m being very serious. Your posting indicate that you do not.
Ben,
It is not so much a matter of denying the doctrine of original sin as wondering what it could possibly mean once the story of Adam and Eve is not taken literally.
I find it difficult to imagine believing something because an authority (whether it be a high school teacher or a pope) says I must believe it. How does one go about believing something when one doesn’t believe it?
The earliest Christians were lucky in that they could believe in Jesus rather than believing in an endless number of doctrines that we are now told we “have to believe.”
I’m not sure referencing the Papal definition does much but reveal that it is doctrine. Even though revealed truths must be accepted on faith, there is still a ratio, a visible continuity and coherence regarding why Catholics believe this doctrine as opposed to any of the other options. What might be helpful is, as David has pointed out, 1) a clear understanding of the nature of original sin granting that Genesis cannot be taken as “literal” in the fundamentalist sense; and 2) a bit about the original context of the dogma;s formation, reasons offered for and against the dogma, i.e. what horizons of understanding were necessary in order to recognize it as something truly revealed by God?
Pax Christi,
I’m surprised Henry Karlson hasn’t dropped by here yet, but is there enough in the Fathers (I think St. John Damascene might have said something to this effect) to build on towards an understanding that not merely was Our Lady conceived without sin, original or otherwise, but that the sexual act by which she was conceived was also so free, and thus in her conception humanity enjoyed at last the sexual ecstasy of Eden, free from all taints and hangups?