One of the most misunderstood doctrines is today’s feast day, the Immaculate Conception. As C. S. Lewis noted, “Immaculate Conception,” “in the mouth of an uneducated speaker always means Virgin Birth.” That popular confusion continues to this day, with Rep. Matt Gaetz (R- FL) being the most recent to publicly conflate the two. So to clarify…
1.No, the Immaculate Conception Isn’t About the Conception and Birth of Christ.
Rather, the Immaculate Conception is the doctrine “that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses.” Pope Pius IX proclaimed the doctrine this way, back in 1854:
“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.”
2. But yes, the Immaculate Conception Still Kind of Is About the Conception and Birth of Christ.
In the encyclical defining the doctrine, Pope Pius IX traced its history in a general way, from the statements of the Church Fathers forward. At one point, he explained:
In like manner did they [the Church Fathers] use the words of the prophets to describe this wondrous abundance of divine gifts and the original innocence of the Virgin of whom Jesus was born. They celebrated the august Virgin as the spotless dove, as the holy Jerusalem, as the exalted throne of God, as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built, and as that Queen who, abounding in delights and leaning on her Beloved, came forth from the mouth of the Most High, entirely perfect, beautiful, most dear to God and never stained with the least blemish.
So notice the reason for this – Mary is preserved from original and actual sin because of the role God set her aside to play, from all eternity. In other words, Mary’s Immaculate Conception is inseparable from the fact that she was foretold (from Genesis 3:15 onwards!) to be the one to bear the Redeemer. As Pius explained:
For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.
And so it’s fitting that the Gospel Reading for today is (confusingly, to the uninformed) taken from the Annunciation. It’s in one and the same event that we have the revelation of Mary as “full of Grace” and the promise of Mary as the Virgin Mother.
In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant, the Temple, and the whole City of Jerusalem were glorious not to draw attention away from God’s glory, but to point towards it, a finite expression suggesting God’s infinite glory. Consider the original Temple of Jerusalem; the idea for it came about when King David said to the prophet Nathan, “See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent” (2 Sam. 7:2). Originally, Nathan affirmed this plan, saying to him, “Go, do all that is in your heart; for the Lord is with you,” but God vetoes this plan, saying, “You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me upon the earth” (1 Chron. 22:8). Now, the angel Gabriel comes to the Virgin Mary, and (echoing the words of Nathan) says, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” (Luke 1:28).
Now, the angel Gabriel comes to the Virgin Mary, and (echoing the words of Nathan) says, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” (Luke 1:28). That is, we celebrate today that God set Mary aside as spotless and pure, as a glorious Temple and Ark. And why? Because her whole life is referential, pointing towards the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. That’s why I think it’s best to say that today isn’t … and is… about the Virgin Conception and Birth of Christ.
So the uneducated are those like Matt Gaetz? Joe Heschemeyer, for conflating publicly the two, is too? I’m gonna’ pass on my understanding of illogic and rest in Mary’s arms.
I don’t understand what this means?
This post brings to mind the message of Our Lady of Lourdes. When the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to St. Bernadette she identified herself by saying, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”
What is the point? Mary was born of a human father and mother. We know what Christ said: that those who believe on Him and do the Will of the Father are more blessed than she who bore him. Unless you believe that some pope can ordain the order of Heaven and the nature of divinity? If that’s what you believe then you’re equating popes with God and while that isn’t a new idea in the RC Church, at least by implication, it is a blasphemy.
This of course begs the question of what limits if any the RC Church admits on the purported Petrine Mandate and it’s purported powers. Are there in fact any limits set somewhere? Because if not, you clearly are equating God and the popes.
“To become the mother of the Savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.”132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.”
Pure conjecture, we have no evidence of what gifts God gave Mary, but as cited God often chooses the most meek, humble and even “unworthy” to receive His gifts of Grace, the better that the source of them should be apparent.
Here the RC Church is trapped in the Marian cult and the deification of Mary: on the one hand you say she was meek and humble and God required her free will consent, and on the other hand you negate and contradict all of that by claiming she was herself not “conceived in sin”, was sinless in life (was there ever a human who was?), and was full of God’s Grace when she accepted the Annunciation. So, if she was of unequalled virtue, sinless and full of God’s grace (presumably the Holy Spirit) when she accepted the Annunciation, she can hardly be said to have accepted of her free will!
“Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women.130 Mary “stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established.”131
Indeed, and it would only fit God’s precedents if he dealt with Mary as he dealt with those others He chose.
If Mary was so full of grace etc. how was it she has such a small role in Scripture, and is shown therein having no apparent gifts of understanding (Christ among the teachers for example). Nor does she feature at all in the Acts of the Apostles, there is not one word of her having any spiritual gifts at all, before or after the Resurrection, nor of performing any miracles. She passes from the scene in obscurity, living and dying we believe in the care of the Apostle. In other words, she left as quietly as she came, in all meekness and humility. Nothing less would be fitting.
As for her heavenly role, those who have believed on her Son and done the will of the Father will one day find out. Until then, we had best be about the Father’s business, not speculating upon the exact gradient hierarchy of grace which we might assign to the Virgin Mary, since no man save Christ will have any say in that.