Immaculate Conception

[Peetem]

A question I can't seem to get a good answer.....

The Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.

Why didn't God do the same thing for all mankind after the fall (and continue to do)?

Thanks!

[Doom]

Because he chose not to

[gherkin]

Our Lady was preserved from original sin through the merits of her Son, applied, as it were, in advance. (I don't think I've ever written 'as it were' before, and having just done so, I feel dirty.) So the action of preserving her presupposes the Incarnation, death and resurrection of her Son. But Jesus came to free from our sins (among other things). If, then, we were preserved from the stain of sin, he wouldn't have become Incarnate. (This point is debated among the theologians, of course, with Scotus as usual being wrong and St. Thomas saying what I just said, only better.) But if he hadn't become Incarnate, we couldn't be preserved from the stain of original sin as was Our Lady, as in see first sentence above. Therefore, etc, QED.

All that said, and although I certainly don't agree with Doom, God could have saved us anyway he wished (or he could have refrained from saving us), and hence everything I just said is presuming the actual mode of redemption which God freely elected, presumably because he deemed it most fitting. So by the absolute power, God could have just waved away the consequences of original sin, but it wouldn't have been as fitting as what he actually did.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I disagree with Doom and gherkin, of course, but I would point out that "Why didn't God do X?" questions are not answerable because He works on an entirely different level than we do. We are not capable of grasping His plan.

[Doom]

According to one (obviously unprovable this side of eternity) theory, the Incarnation was the entire point of creation and it would have happened even if man never fell.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

That's the Scotist theory, and therefore icky and wrong

[thejack]

I've always liked that theory. Liking it is no justification for affirming it, though I tend to provisionally affirm it just on the grounds that I do like it, that it seems more fitting than the alternative, and the fact that Scotus was no dunce (pun entirely intended) so it must not be blatantly stupid. It's on my list of things to study someday to try to come to a conclusion on. I doubt, given what I actually need to spend time on, I'll actually be able to do so.

edit: and yes, I have at least read ST III.1.3.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Study? When you can just give a knee-jerk reaction? How quaint.

[Peetem]

Thanks all for the responses.

Very helpful!

[anawim]

A question I can't seem to get a good answer.....

The Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.

Why didn't God do the same thing for all mankind after the fall (and continue to do)?

Thanks!

In the second paragraph of Ineffabilis Deus, it states:

And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent.

If I'm reading that right, it was because she would participate with her divine son in the work of redemption.