Emeka —

Jesus didn't have original sin because he was God, not because Mary didn't have original sin.

Mary was preserved from original sin not to ensure Jesus was, but to make a more fitting vessel for God.

Eric

Emeka —

Mary was not affected by original sin.

A sinful and fallen humanity would have no effect on Jesus whatsoever, because He was God.

Eric

Emeka,

Let's re-include some of my colleagues who originally got the question but have been excluded from the private conversation we have been having. I'd like to get their insight. Perhaps they have a different perspective.

Be sure to do a Reply All on any further replies.

Not all of the conversation is below.

The summary of our conversation is that Emeka knows an apologist who is making an argument about the reason for the Immaculate Conception that I think presents some problems.

His argument is that:

and

and

My argument is that Jesus was sinless by virtue of being God, not because He was born of a sinless woman, and in arguing in that way, it leaves one open to the counter-argument that would require that Sts. Joachim and Anne be sinless so that Mary could be sinless, and so on, and so on, and so on, back to Adam and Eve, which is absurd.

Back to your latest question Emeka, the reason that Mary was conceived immaculately, according to the Catechism (and I can find no other reason there), is found in paragraph 490:

"[I]n order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation [as mother of the Savior], it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace [i.e. immaculately conceived]".

So Mary was immaculately conceived so she could freely choose, unencumbered by original sin and its consequences . . . (what we call concupiscence — the tendency to sin), to become the Mother of God.

This ties in to the theme from very early Fathers St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus that Mary was the new Eve, whose Yes reversed the No of Eve and untied the knot of disobedience, resulting in life through Mary overcoming death through Eve.

As Eve was created without sin, chose death, and conceived the word of the serpent so to speak, so Mary was conceived without sin, chose life, and conceived the Word of God.

Eric

Emeka,

To offer my two cents, I take the both/and, rather than either/or approach to Eric's last response.

I do believe it's important that the new Adam and new Eve are born with no sin like their old counterparts, so that they may neatly and perfectly undo sin's consequence. But I also see the argument of Jesus taking a human nature untainted by sin very compelling too.

I would say His Person and divine nature (both divine) are sinless because he's God; but not his human nature. Human nature has been transfigured in some mysterious way by the rejection of original innocence and this has been inherited in all of us.

My question would be whether Mary's nature had the tri-fold preternatural gifts of freedom from:

1. concupiscence
2. suffering, and
3. death.

• And if not, why? — since she is free from every stain of original sin.

Many have declared Mary free from concupiscence, but not suffering and death; and those who believed Mary did not die before her Assumption, are willing to say the death process of old age and the breaking down of the body did occur in her. But this is all due to a human nature effected by original sin.

• Again, if all three gifts were lost to our first parents via original sin, wouldn't logic have it that Mary would have all three?

Paul

Dear Emeka,

I have a few comments to make based on your original question and what my colleagues have said. You said:

• If Mary had original sin and therefore a fallen humanity, would Jesus have had it (a fallen humanity)?

and later you said:

• Are you saying that Mary having original sin or a sinful and fallen humanity would have no effect on Jesus whatsoever?

While we welcome your questions, I want to take note that both questions are hypothetical questions.

As Catholic Apologists, our mission is to defend and clarify official teachings of the Catholic Church — not What if questions.

For us to try to answer hypothetical What if questions, would be asking us to know the mind of God and his Divine Providence, and I can assure you none of us claim to be God, though we partake in His Divine nature through the Eucharist.

Yes, we can have personal, theological opinions on hypothetical questions, but any theological opinions are just that, opinions; they have no official, doctrinal or dogmatic weight according to the Church.

I agree with both Eric and Paul's replies but would nuance Eric's answer differently.

Eric said:

We shouldn't answer a Catholic question based on a possible counter-argument. My opinion is that Sts. Joachim and Anne were like any other couple living today. They were married, had children and, yes, struggled with the same concupiscence, suffering, and death, that any couple does today.

That said, Our Blessed Mother was immaculately conceived in the womb of St. Anne, Mary's mother. (This is called the Immaculate Conception.) Therefore she had no original sin. These last three sentences are what the Church teaches on this topic.

God is not bound to logical human thinking so I would reject the claim that Sts. Joachim and Anne and their previous ancestors had to be immaculate going back to Adam, in order for St. Anne to immaculately conceive our Blessed Mother.

If God wants something to happen, He can just do it. It's within His Job Description. Period  : )

Mike

Emeka —

I don't know if the Immaculate Conception was necessary.

• Could God have done it a different way?

That's a mystery. I'd go so far as to say it is very fitting; it makes perfect sense and I can't see it happening any other way — seeing that God was to take His human nature from untainted flesh.

Paul

Emeka,

If it was God's choice to save mankind from their sins this way, then yes, it was necessary.

Sure, He could have done it a different way, but He chose not to.

Mike