I am slowly converting to Catholicism and am confused on the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. I do understand that it is Mary's conception that she was free from original sin. According to St. Augustine, original sin was passed down via sexual intercourse. Augustine also said that because Jesus did not have a human biological father and was not conceived with sperm. From what I understand of the story of St. Joachim and Anne, they had intercourse at the gates of Jerusalem. I may be wrong on these things as I am still learning. But taking these things into account, how can Mary be born without original sin if her parents had intercourse.

In the *Ineffabilis Deus*, Pope Pius IX states: > Mary ... 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. Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- **to think > otherwise** than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand > that he is **condemned by his own judgment**; that he has suffered > shipwreck in the faith; that he has **separated from the unity of the > Church**; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the > penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or > writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his > heart. Does this mean that that even if I have confessed my sin, been baptized, and live according to Christ's commands, but I don't believe that Mary was without original sin, then I'm doomed to hell? **If so, why is this an essential doctrine for salvation?** Note that this question asks *if* the Immaculate Conception was necessary for our salvation. I am asking why *belief* in the Immaculate Conception is necessary.

This question of mine springs from reading this article (Orthodoxy and the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ) referenced in this answer to this Christianity SE question: [What is the Catholic response to the Eastern Orthodox view that the Immaculate Conception remove Jesus' ability to redeem all of humanity?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/20000/27623) Basically it contests the modern assertion of Orthodox teachers that the Eastern Orthodox church has always opposed the idea of the immaculate conception and instead taught that Mary became pure while raised in the temple as articulated in this podcast: [Perfection Possible](http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/voicefromisles/perfection_possible) . I have a suspicion that the article imposes Western Catholic meanings on the writings of the Eastern fathers/teachers that they cite. I could not look up the references on the internet (for free anyways). Can anyone provide support for or argument against this article while actually citing texts from Eastern Orthodox teachers that I can read or at least providing quotes. Any citation from an EO teacher before the 15th century would be fitting, as the article maintains that it wasn't until this time that the Orthodox began to react against the immaculate conception. The one source I looked up this morning was from St. Gregory Palamas: [Sermon on the Entry of the Mother of God into the Temple](https://oca.org/fs/sermons/sermon-on-the-entry-of-the-theotokos) . Where he seems to teach something in complete agreement with the contemporary Orthodox view. Specifically, that the Virgin Mary was made pure not simply by election of God, but that her own will and ascetical efforts were involved as well. The corollary being that original sin doesn't need to be miraculously removed by the pre-election of God, but that our ancestral sin is removed by a participatory process.

In 1858 St. Bernadette asked for the name of the beautiful Lady who was appearing to her. The Beautiful Lady answered her "I am the Immaculate Conception." Why didn't she simply tell her she was the Mother of God? Or why didn't she say "I am immaculately conceived."

In the Lourdes apparition in 1858, the young Bernadette asked a question to a Lady in her vision, saying.... *"Who are you?"* The Lady answered, **"I am the Immaculate Conception".** Was the answer pertaining to a Divine Person speaking before Bernadette? Was the Lady introduced Herself as a Divine Being? https://ollsm.com/story-of-lourdes#:~:text=Our%20Lady%20of%20Lourdes%20is,properties%2C%20active%20to%20this%20day . **Note:** The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not about a Divine Person, but how the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived, as the dogma clearly stated, "...at the first instance of conception, Mary was free from all stain of original sin..." >**What Is the Immaculate Conception?** >The Immaculate Conception is a Catholic dogma that states that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain. That’s what “immaculate” means: without stain. https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption Clearly, the dogma is not referring to a Divine Person, but describing how Mary was conceived free from original sin and its stain. Now back to specific question. The young Bernadette asked, *"Who are you?"* Clearly, this is asking who is the person that she was seeing, and not how this person is conceived. So, when the Lady in the vision answered, **"I am the Immaculate Conception"** *Was the Lady introducing a Divine Being, a different being from Herself?*

It is my understanding that in Catholic Theology the immaculate conception relates to the fact that Mary was born without the blemish of original sin. It is also my understanding that Mary was, through the grace of God, kept from ever committing any personal sin as well. As a Protestant, I have a hard time understanding how these dogmas do not completely negate the need for a savior for not only Mary but every human. If God can save one person from original sin and personal sin without the death of Jesus Christ why not everyone? How does the Catholic atonement theology address this?

I know that Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception. What is that? Is this the same as the virginal conception of Jesus?

Jesuit theologian [Fr. Kenneth Baker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Baker_(Jesuit)) states that Mary was not only free from sin but was "unable" to sin: > Two special factors rendered Mary impeccable or unable to sin. The > first was her constant awareness of God, living always in His > presence, and the second was her reception of special and > extraordinary graces. These special graces made it possible for Mary > to maintain a perfect harmony in her mind, will and emotions and to > recognize always what was the right thing to do and then to do it. > (Baker, Kenneth (2016). Fundamentals of Catholicism, Vol. 2. Ignatius > Press. ISBN 978-1-68149-732-7.) The Catholic Encyclopedia on "The Blessed Virgin Mary" seems to confirm this when it says that her sinlessness was due to "divine privilege" and that she never experienced temptation: > Theologians assert that Mary was > impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a > special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the > fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin > never experienced the motions of concupiscence. Does the Catholic Church teach simply that Mary did not sin, or that she was unable to sin?

Did Mary never sin throughout her life ("Holy Mary") because she received the grace of Immaculate Conception, or are there two different graces? The dogma of Immaculate Conception states (in [*Ineffabilis Deus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffabilis_Deus#Content)) : > 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 Saviour 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. (See also another question .) Meanwhile, the Catholic Catechism states > 493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the > All-Holy" (*Panagia*), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, > as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature". > By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole > life long. It is not clear to me whether the features are product of the same grace. The other example where the two conditions meet is Jesus Christ. I am not aware of the Church declaring another person as having received the grace of not ever sinning, or of immaculate conception. Perhaps both come together because they are the same? P.S.: In my opinion, this related question does not answer the question.

The belief that Mary never committed sin has been around a long time, much longer than the final formulation of the doctrine of her immaculate conception (which happened around the 13th century). Augustine (d. 430), despite his doctrine of original sin, apparently carved out an exception for her, as summarized in the *Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity*'s entry on Mary: > Augustine, drawn into the problem of Mary’s holiness by Pelagius, affirms against the opinion of his adversary that Mary, *propter honorem Domini*, is the only woman without sin (*De nat. et gratia* 36,42). On the other hand, Augustine's contemporary John Chrysostom (d. 407) apparently didn't go quite so far: > Even John Chrysostom (d. 407), although attributing some imperfection to Mary, nonetheless holds her up as the example of the woman who overcomes human weaknesses (*Co. Io.* 20-21). **I'd like to know if any after Chrysostom believed that Mary committed sin.** I'd guess that the influence of Augustine would reduce the likelihood of finding this view in the West, but perhaps one or more fathers in the East continued to hold that she was less than morally perfect. This question follows typical definitions of what a "church father" is, but to spell it out, they are "ancient and generally influential Christian theologians" (as [Wikipedia says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers)) , not those closely associated with heretical movements (such as the Pelagian [Julian of Eclanum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_of_Eclanum)) , and not the anonymous authors of popular apocryphal stories. And we'll say that the last of the church fathers is [John of Damascus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus) (d. 749).

The immaculate nature of Mary is a doctrine, that holds that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception and that she lived a holy and sinless life, but did any of the early church fathers believe that Mary was without sin?

According to many Catholic apologists, like Dr. Robert Sungenis,1 the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary is not simply binding because it is a divinely revealed dogma, but according to them it is binding additionally because logically speaking without Mary being sinless Jesus could not accomplish the redemptive work in the first place. **What exactly do they mean by this?** The story goes like this, to save mankind Jesus had to be sinless. Therefore Mary had to be sinless to not pass on original sin. But then Protestant apologists just say "the grace could have been given directly to Jesus" or "why wasn't the grace given to the mother and father of Mary, or even further back?" > Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of > the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the > Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and > for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of > Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by > our own: > > **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.** Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think > otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand > that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered > shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the > Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the > penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or > writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his > heart.” > > **Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854** Questions in formal form is as follows: **Why was it necessary for the salvation plan to have specifically Mary the mother of Jesus be utterly without sin?** ---------- 1. For example, in this [video debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wus6CrzleRw%22) at 1:05:18 ("because if she isn't sinless, she's going to produce a sinful Savior") and 1:13:00.

Where does the Catholic tradition that Mary's birth of Jesus was painless come from? My wife just got home from a non-denominational study about Mary and she said she thought everybody knew this, but apparently no one knew about it - especially the Protestants! In any event, what I'm looking for is the origin of the quote that Jesus' birth was "like light passing through glass" and whether that quote is wholly indicative of a painless birth or if it could have been painless in another way? I understand that it's a little t tradition in the Church, not a dogma or anything. But it's definitely a strong tradition; although it's one that could use a little preaching on from what I can tell.

I read that dogma is the church's way of explaining supernatural events in scripture Since I have been doing research on the question of how a perfect Jesus could be born of a descendant of Adam, it occurred to me that the Immaculate Conception dogma may have come about in this way. Is it recorded anywhere that a challenge was made regarding Mary being imperfect, thus not able to bring forth the Savior, and the early fathers responding to this with the dogma that explains the supernatural way this could be accomplished?

I was readIng an ad for a movie about blessed Duns Scotus which said he was debated and won against the Dominicans in the 13th century about the special privilege given to Mary, her Immaculate Conception. What I don't know (and don't really want to buy the movie to find out is) 1. For what reason did they doubt her Immaculate Conception? (and) 2. Is this why the Rosary starts with the Annunciation and not the Immaculate Conception?

What are the oldest known writings that state that Mary was without sin?

According to Catholic Doctrine, the Immaculate Conception refers to the teaching that Mary's own conception (not that of Jesus) was without the stain of original sin. What is the biblical basis for this? And if this is true, did Mary not need to be saved from her sin? Was she also sinless? If she were sinless, then why would she have suffered the consequences of sin--that of death?

St. Joachim is known to live a pious and humble life. If St. Joachim lived according to God's will and followed His inspirations in making a marital procreative act with St. Anne under the grace of God, is this how original sin was not transmitted to Mary? The Council of Trent defined the *de fide* dogma that original sin is transmitted by natural generation. It says: >*propagatione, non imitatione transfusum omnibus.* (D 790 ) > >In the baptism of children that is expurgated which they have incurred through generation. (D 791 ) As original sin is a *peccatum naturæ*, it is transmitted in the same way as human nature, through the natural act of generation. Although according to its origin, it is a single sin (D 790 ) that is the sin of the head of the race alone (the sin of Eve is not the cause of original sin) it is multiplied over and over again through natural generation whenever a child of Adam enters existence. In each act of generation human nature is communicated in a condition deprived of grace. The chief cause (*causa efficiens principalis*) of original sin is the sin of Adam alone. The instrumental cause (*causa efficiens instrumentalis*) is the natural act of generation, which gives rise to the connection of the individual human being with the head of the race. The actual concupiscence associated with the act of generation, the sexual pleasure (libido) is, contrary to the view of St. Augustine (*De nuptiis et concup.* I 23, 25; 24, 27), neither the cause nor the inescapable condition for the reproduction of original sin. It is only an accompanying phenomenon of the act of generation, which in itself alone is the instrumental cause of the transmission of original sin. Cf. S. th. 1 II 82, 4 ad 3. Based on the Council of Trent definition on concupiscence, it is the "instrumental cause of transmission" and in the Gospel the concupiscence can be overcome as testified by St. Paul (Galatians 5:24 -25): >Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Galatians 2:20 : >I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God,who loved me and gave himself for me. Is there a Church teachings or writings that states St. Joachim may have overcome "concupiscence" and thus prevented the transmission of original sin?

When and who declared the Immaculate Conception the patroness of the United States of America?

Is the following quotation an accurate explanation of Roman Catholic dogma regarding Mary? > The reason that Mary is “full of grace,” the Church has said, is because of Ephesians 1:3-6 (Redemptoris Mater, no. 7-11). Here is how John Henry Newman puts it: > >"Does not the objector consider that Eve was created, or born, without original sin? Why does not this shock him? Would he have been inclined to worship Eve in that first estate of hers? Why, then, Mary? > >"Does he [the objector] not believe that St. John Baptist had the grace of God—i.e., was regenerated, even before his birth? What do we believe of Mary, but that grace was given her at a still earlier period? All we say is, that grace was given her from the first moment of her existence. > >“We do not say that she did not owe her salvation to the death of her son.”" (Source: Catholic Integral Complementarity, by Aimee Byrd )