If God broke Marys family’s lineage of original sin, couldnt he have just done that with Jesus, even if Mary was born with original sin?
If we say Jesus who was sinless, HAD to be born of a sinless woman, wouldn’t that mean that since Mary was sinless, she too, would have had to be born of a sinless woman? And Marys mom born of a sinless woman, and so on?
Look what happened to poor Uzzah when he touched the Ark of the Covenant in 2 Samuel 6:7. Imagine what would have happened to Mary – who carried God Himself in her womb for 9 months – if she had a trace of something within her that was incompatible with His holiness.
The same need not be true for her mother Ann because Mary is not God.
…Uh, this is the same series of events that involved men walking on water, blind men seeing, the dead rising from their graves, virgin births and the assumption of people into the heavens.
I don’t think logic really comes into it at any stage of the story But!..I would say no, but it doesn’t really make much difference either way. God could get a virgin to give birth, why couldn’t he create her free of sin as well :shrug:
The answer to your question is essentially no–it does not 'logically follow…". The Immaculate Conception ultimately gained the traction that would ultimately serve to clear the way to its acceptance through an argument based on ‘fitting’ rather than necessity, first framed by Duns Scotus, a French Franciscan priest, in debates against the Dominicans, in the 11th century.
To answer your question, in an apologetic I use when discussing the Virgin Mary with protestants (and fitting to your “…couldn’t he have just doe that with Jesus…” question):
*God could have just ‘poofed’ into existence. The Father could have just ‘poofed’ Jesus into existence. He could have created Him from dust, as with Adam, or the from the rib of a man, as with Eve…
…but He chose to be born of a Woman—the Virgin Mary–whom He chose, and created, for that very purpose (and of course, conceived by the Holy Spirit).*
Hence it is fitting–and consistent with the overall salvation narrative–in the parallel references to the Ark of the Covenant, the ‘Woman’ of Genesis, the ‘Woman’ of Revelation, (recall Christ refers to Mary several times as “Woman”–thus explicitly drawing the nexus).
But no, not necessary, and therefore not a matter of ‘logically following’–but by the same token, not illogical, nor inconsistent at all, with the overall salvation–but consistent, and fitting.
Also worth noting–although the argument by Duns Scotus seems far removed from the dogmatic declaration in/around 1850, the circumstances surrounding both, combined with the apparitions at Lourdes, suggest rather compellingly, divine revelation, supporting the Dogma.
PS–I am not suggesting that the concept originated with Duns Scotus–it originated significantly before that, with the ECF’s–but his argument was significant in paving the way to wider acceptance.
He could have, and that’s something of a mystery, in the same way as to why the final judgement hasn’t arrived or why hell and free will exists.
I did read one theory from a Catholic apologist recently that suggested the drama involved in the series of events was to a) show his power and ability to bend reality and b) use powerful imagery such as being willing to die for all mankind as a sign of how much he loved all people.
The Church teaches that Mary is the new Eve who in a singular way cooperated with Christ in the redemption of the human race. The first Eve who was created sinless played a part in the fall of the human race. I do not see it to be against reason that Mary the new Eve should have been created sinless as the first Eve was especially since Mary is the Mother of God.
We can speculate all that we want and one of those ways of speculation could be from a biological point of view with looking at sin as a contaminant.
When sin entered the world all was contaminated except for two eggs and one sperm.
One egg and one sperm, Mary.
The other egg and no earthly Father, Jesus.
Two eggs and one sperm.
I believe that it took a “pure” body to contain a “Being of Love” inside it and to nurture this “Being” into a full term baby without being “burned”.
People don’t seem to realize that being with God can be “heaven” or can be “hell” since the “consuming fire of Love”, which Is God, can either caress or burn.
This “Being of Love”, Incarnated, Who took ALL of the sins of ALL upon Himself, could then come into the most personal contact with anyone, even the most contaminated of all without the “burn factor”, so to speak, getting in the way.
Since Jesus did this on the cross, He can “burn” all of the crud, so to speak, out of anyone.
Just as in a worldly sense all of the “junk” can be burned out and all that is left is “pure gold”, God is capable of totally “cleaning” ALL, by what was accomplished by God’s “work” on the cross.
So many do not think that God is capable of bringing about God’s Will which is “that ALL be saved”, God’s Will will be done.
I’m not especially bright or well versed in theology, but I hope this makes sense…
Our fallen state isn’t natural, so to be sinless then is to be as God intended and how we’ll hopefully end up when we’ve lost the capacity to sin at death. Mary is the first recipient of God’s salvation at her conception so that Our Lord could receive from her his human nature as God intended from the beginning - sinless. This is one reason why Our Blessed Mother is called the new Eve.
Since God seems to have counted on God-Incarnate’s work on the cross to be successful, with Mary being “the first recipient of God’s salvation”, even before the earthly start of God-Incarnate’s work and with Mary being called the new “Eve”, shouldn’t the “new Eve’s family” contain all of the “original Eve’s family”?
It is a mystery, for all we know, He could have taken an egg from Eve before she fell and used that egg to conceive Mary with. We don’t know how God did it, but it’s certainly not impossible. If mankind can do things like that, save eggs and sperm for future use etc why can’t God?
The analogy I’ve heard. Suppose Original Sin is like falling into a lake. There are two ways to save someone from it. Throwing something out to them after they’ve fallen in (Baptism) and preventing them from falling in in the first place (Immaculate Conception)
There is no logical necessity for Mary to have been conceived and born free of original sin. Rather, it is fitting and proper that God should give the women who bore his son, and would suffer the unjust death of her son, the extraordinary gift of the Immaculate Conception.
To me, saying “its fitting” just has the connotation of subjectiveness and like someones opinion. I dont necessarily think it fits. If we’re going the route of whats more fitting for an omniscient being, Id say its more fitting that God wouldn’t have been born at all, but rather descended from the clouds of Heaven at the age of 30 to begin His ministry just like that.