Best explanation for Mary's FAVORED, SINLESS STATUS?

[brb3]

IMO, Duns Scotus’ explanation is Problematic ? It makes Mary an ‘other worldly’ creature, unlike the rest of mankind. Yet, the first century Christians didn’t see Mary as different from themselves. So, I don’t think they saw her as enjoying an Immaculate Conception birth.

Am I making a mistake to think the Apostles and early Christians didn’t see an IC for Mary ?

 

[NotWorthy]

What makes you think they didn’t see Mary as any different then them? There are no writings from the 1st century other than the New Testament and Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians that we have salvaged from the 1st century. One would assume there was a vast amount of writings done throughout the 1st century, but sadly they are not available to us today.

If you want to see what the early Church thought about Mary, I would look to St. Justin Martyr’s and St. Ireneaus’ writings to begin to see what the Church taught about Mary.

 

[bogeydogg]

IMO, Duns Scotus’ explanation is Problematic ? It makes Mary an ‘other worldly’ creature, unlike the rest of mankind. Yet, the first century Christians didn’t see Mary as different from themselves. So, I don’t think they saw her as enjoying an Immaculate Conception birth.

Am I making a mistake to think the Apostles and early Christians didn’t see an IC for Mary ?

I think we can honor Mary (after all she is inspired by the Holy Spirit to declare all generation will call her blessed) and still recognize she was human. In sort of the same way we confess Christ was fully man and fully God. We can never separate Christ’s divinity from His humanity and we would be wrong to try. Thus when Christ hungered, slept, and died God did all those things.

Of course Mary is not God but we can have some idea of how to treat her from this. She was human and yet favored by God as no other person ever was. She is venerated as no other person ever was. She is honored above all the children of men and this is right and good. And yet she was a teenager given into God’s service by God’s will in spite of the terrible circumstance this placed her in. To call Mary human and see her as human does not lessen her in my eyes, it deepens my amazement at her submission to God and raises her as exemplar of the faith.

God bless.

 

[stewstew03]

IMO, Duns Scotus’ explanation is Problematic ? It makes Mary an ‘other worldly’ creature, unlike the rest of mankind. Yet, the first century Christians didn’t see Mary as different from themselves. So, I don’t think they saw her as enjoying an Immaculate Conception birth.

Am I making a mistake to think the Apostles and early Christians didn’t see an IC for Mary ?

Do you disagree with Ineffabilis Deus?

 

[Rosinante]

IMO, Duns Scotus’ explanation is Problematic ? It makes Mary an ‘other worldly’ creature, unlike the rest of mankind. Yet, the first century Christians didn’t see Mary as different from themselves. So, I don’t think they saw her as enjoying an Immaculate Conception birth.

Am I making a mistake to think the Apostles and early Christians didn’t see an IC for Mary ?

Well, the veneration of Mary may not have been so widespread throughout all of Chrstianity, during the first century, but they certainly can be traced back to it. The roots of the veneration of Mary, acutally lead back to St. John, the Aposlte (through St. Ireaneus, and St. Polycarp before him…). Tradition holds that she lived with St. John in Ephesus, in modern Turkey, up until her Assumption (that’s why the council of Ephesus, there. Part of the inquiry into the quesion concerning Theotokos, revolvoed around her remains. Where were they? Why weren’t they venerated, as so many other Saints’ remains? (b/c she was assumed–not died…). This of course, corresponds with Christ’s command to St. John (and to Mary–i.e.–"…woman, behold your son…).

In addition to the above, the earliest icon found in the catacombs, is a depiction of the Virgin Mary, holding the infant Yeshua.

Additonally, I’d point to our counterparts to the East. Is it coincidence, that schismatic though they may be, the Eastern Rite Cat’s, who may also claim apostolic origin, hold Mary in very high regard?

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[PJM]

=brb3;10165111]IMO, Duns Scotus’ explanation is Problematic ? It makes Mary an ‘other worldly’ creature, unlike the rest of mankind. Yet, the first century Christians didn’t see Mary as different from themselves. So, I don’t think they saw her as enjoying an Immaculate Conception birth.

Am I making a mistake to think the Apostles and early Christians didn’t see an IC for Mary ?

Yes; maybe and No; all of the above.

The “Imaculate Conception” very likely was not even a thought for the Apostles who “had their hands full” with the formation of the New Covenant Church in the midst of SEVERE persecutions.

IMO it very [most] likely the the “IC” did not even become a topic of debate until sometime after the First Council of Niceia; and the “The Edict of Milan” that granted religious freedoms not before given.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary
by Dr. Robert Schihl: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3a.htm
"The constant faith (tradition: paradosis) of the Church attests to the belief in the special preparation of the holiness of the person of Mary to bear in her body the most holy person of the Son of God.

Church Fathers:
implicitly found in the Fathers of the Church in the parallelism between Eve and Mary (Irenaeus, Lyons, 140? - 202?);

Found in the more general terms about Mary: “holy”, “innocent”, “most pure”, “intact”, “immaculate” (Irenaeus, Lyons, 140?-202?; Ephraem, Syria, 306-373; Ambrose, Milan, 373-397);

Explicit language: Mary - free from original sin (Augustine, Hippo, 395-430 to Anselm, Normandy, 1033-1109);
Eastern Church" … celebrated a Feast of the Conception of Mary in the 8th to the 9th Century; See site

In that Doctrine FLOWS from and through Tradional beleif; it would have had an eary foundation of understanding [IMO].

 

[Mintaka]

Heh heh heh. No.

Actually, there were plenty of early Christians who believed that Mary was indeed specially conceived. The Protoevangelium of James is an early Christian work, and it goes into tons of detail about how Super Special that Mary was in her prophecied arrival to her parents, conception, early childhood, etc.

And that’s without even going into the heretical early Christian sects who apparently believed that Mary was either the Holy Spirit or part of Christ’s Godness, and therefore ate Communion with milk or cheese.

So you get notorious argument-loving theologians like St. Jerome and St. Augustine just being shocked that anybody would possibly think that Mary could ever have sinned. Even most of the hard-edged radical heretic theologian guys (like Arius) were careful to explain that if she did sin it couldn’t have been more than once, or that the closest she ever came to sin was just feeling confused and doubtful. The few people who dared to say that Mary was an ordinary sinner were universally decried as big fat jerks who didn’t love Jesus.

And yes, early Christians were willing to riot in the streets if they thought Mary was being insulted. Witness the spontaneous marching crowds in support of her title “Theotokos.”

So generally, the big argument was whether God decreed to make Mary sinless from birth or from before birth; and if before birth, figuring out when life began and whether Mary’s sinless life had begun right then or a few God-touched moments later.

So yes, the real theological argument was just how special and sinless Mary was, not whether she was sinless or not.

 

[brb3]

Yes; maybe and No; all of the above.

The “Imaculate Conception” very likely was not even a thought for the Apostles who “had their hands full” with the formation of the New Covenant Church in the midst of SEVERE persecutions.

IMO it very [most] likely the the “IC” did not even become a topic of debate until sometime after the First Council of Niceia; and the “The Edict of Milan” that granted religious freedoms not before given.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary
by Dr. Robert Schihl: ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3a.htm
"The constant faith (tradition: paradosis) of the Church attests to the belief in the special preparation of the holiness of the person of Mary to bear in her body the most holy person of the Son of God.

Church Fathers:
implicitly found in the Fathers of the Church in the parallelism between Eve and Mary (Irenaeus, Lyons, 140? - 202?);

Found in the more general terms about Mary: “holy”, “innocent”, “most pure”, “intact”, “immaculate” (Irenaeus, Lyons, 140?-202?; Ephraem, Syria, 306-373; Ambrose, Milan, 373-397);

Explicit language: Mary - free from original sin (Augustine, Hippo, 395-430 to Anselm, Normandy, 1033-1109);
Eastern Church" … celebrated a Feast of the Conception of Mary in the 8th to the 9th Century; See site

In that Doctrine FLOWS from and through Tradional beleif; it would have had an eary foundation of understanding [IMO].

Ok … so, we know the Marian doctrines were slow to take root, and have evolved over last 1600 years, and perhaps still evolving today.
Nevertheless, I still can’t figure Mary out. Jesus was not afraid to touch sinners or lepers. As the God-man, nothing defiled him. God, willingly took on human flesh in order to share in all things like man …yet w/o committing sin. And, when the seed of God joined the seed of David’s offspring( Mary’s ova), any Inherited sin or Original sin associated with human DNA genetics would of been instantly annihilated. Jesus able to heal and make clean ALL HE TOUCHED.
So, why do we need Mary’s IC ? Do we presume to think that that God’s Holy Spirit could not of accomplished the same result …of purification of her egg/ova at that instant of fertilization event ?

 

[brb3]

Heh heh heh. No.

Actually, there were plenty of early Christians who believed that Mary was indeed specially conceived. The Protoevangelium of James is an early Christian work, and it goes into tons of detail about how Super Special that Mary was in her prophecied arrival to her parents, conception, early childhood, etc.

And that’s without even going into the heretical early Christian sects who apparently believed that Mary was either the Holy Spirit or part of Christ’s Godness, and therefore ate Communion with milk or cheese.

So you get notorious argument-loving theologians like St. Jerome and St. Augustine just being shocked that anybody would possibly think that Mary could ever have sinned. Even most of the hard-edged radical heretic theologian guys (like Arius) were careful to explain that if she did sin it couldn’t have been more than once, or that the closest she ever came to sin was just feeling confused and doubtful. The few people who dared to say that Mary was an ordinary sinner were universally decried as big fat jerks who didn’t love Jesus.

And yes, early Christians were willing to riot in the streets if they thought Mary was being insulted. Witness the spontaneous marching crowds in support of her title “Theotokos.”

So generally, the big argument was whether God decreed to make Mary sinless from birth or from before birth; and if before birth, figuring out when life began and whether Mary’s sinless life had begun right then or a few God-touched moments later.

So yes, the real theological argument was just how special and sinless Mary was, not whether she was sinless or not.

Good points …

But, would Mary need an IC or a purification a few moments later, when she received her soul …if indeed some felt there was a small delay before the conceptus received it’s spirit?

Mary could just as easily be viewed as an ordinary like us, who at age of accountability( say age 7-8, chose to devote herself to God, via grace she was given, and she, like her parents, became fully filled with HS, FULLY GRACED as young adult.

Wouldn’t that seem the more likely pathway to her unique calling to be mother of Jesus ?

 

[Rosinante]

Ok … so, we know the Marian doctrines were slow to take root, and have evolved over last 1600 years, and perhaps still evolving today.
Nevertheless, I still can’t figure Mary out. Jesus was not afraid to touch sinners or lepers. As the God-man, nothing defiled him. God, willingly took on human flesh in order to share in all things like man …yet w/o committing sin. And, when the seed of God joined the seed of David’s offspring( Mary’s ova), any Inherited sin or Original sin associated with human DNA genetics would of been instantly annihilated. Jesus able to heal and make clean ALL HE TOUCHED.
So, ***why do we need Mary’s IC ? Do we presume to think that that God’s Holy Spirit could not of accomplished the same result …of purification of her egg/ova at that instant of fertilization event ***?

Why do we ‘need Mary’s IC’? WE don’t; neither does God, quite frankly. But it begs the question–why was there ‘need’ of Mary at all? Why didn’t God just…poof…appear as a man? Why not just manifest? Why not create a man, as with Adam?

These rhetorical questions shed light on why God chose to become incarnate…AS HE DID–and they point to, the IC of Mary.

Additionally (further rhetorical question): why the implicit (if not express) reference to the Ark of the Covenant of the OT? Why does John the Baptist ‘leap for joy’ in the womb of Elizebeth, when Mary vists Elizebeth, while they are both pregnant? The parallel reference is to King David, ‘leaping for joy’ when the Ark of the Covenant is brought to him (not conincidentally, in the same area of Judah). She is the Ark of the New Covenant, containing the Word of God ("…in the beginning was the Word, and the Word became flesh, and dwelt amoung us for a while…" John, 1:1).

The Ark of the [old] Covenant contained the Holy of Holies (God), and its interior was unfit to be deifiled or touched or even seen, by man; likewise, the interior of Ark of the New Covenant, must also have been unfit for Man, in Man’s fallen state. Ergo, the Immaculate Conception, which excepts Mary, from Man’s fallen state.

b/t/w: the parallel to the Ark of the Covenant, and Mary as the New Eve, were expressly proclaimed by the early Church Fathers, going back to the First Century–these are not new inventions of the medeival Chruch, contrary to what so many of our seperated brethren would have the world believe.

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[stewstew03]

Good points …

But, would Mary need an IC or a purification a few moments later, when she received her soul …if indeed some felt there was a small delay before the conceptus received it’s spirit?

Mary could just as easily be viewed as an ordinary like us, who at age of accountability( say age 7-8, chose to devote herself to God, via grace she was given, and she, like her parents, became fully filled with HS, FULLY GRACED as young adult.

Wouldn’t that seem the more likely pathway to her unique calling to be mother of Jesus ?

God made Mary and Satan hostile enemies. See Gen 3:15.

 

[PJM]

=brb3;10168050]Ok … so, we know the Marian doctrines were slow to take root, and have evolved over last 1600 years, and perhaps still evolving today.
Nevertheless, I still can’t figure Mary out. Jesus was not afraid to touch sinners or lepers. As the God-man, nothing defiled him. God, willingly took on human flesh in order to share in all things like man …yet w/o committing sin. And, when the seed of God joined the seed of David’s offspring( Mary’s ova), any Inherited sin or Original sin associated with human DNA genetics would of been instantly annihilated. Jesus able to heal and make clean ALL HE TOUCHED.
So, why do we need Mary’s IC ? Do we presume to think that that God’s Holy Spirit could not of accomplished the same result …of purification of her egg/ova at that instant of fertilization event ?

Very thoughtful,

But heres what your overlooking,

God is and HAS to be “Perfect” right? RIGHT!

From this unchangable fact we can deduce the following:

Once God choose the path of mans salvation through Christ a “mother” for the Incarnation had to be chosen.

BECAUSE GOD is and MUST remain “perfect” this mother HAD to be
[absolutely had to be ] “Perfect[ed]”. In order for the Christ to become a “Perfect man” as well as “Perfect-God.” Nothing less would be acceptable to God’s Divine Just-nature.

This WAS accomplised through the merits of her Son [time does not exist for God]. So in an absolute sense Mary HAD to be conceived W/O Original sin. GOD CAN DO ANY GOOD THING:thumbsup: Then MARY HAD TOO by her own freewill choices cooperate FULLY with the super-abundant graces offered to her and choose NEVER to sin; not even one time in her life.

Keep in mind’ all pregnancies and births reflect GOD’S necessary involvement. There are many examples from Abram to John the Baptist where a pregnancy ONLY took place because of God’s DIRECT known intervention.

So in order for Christ the man to be perfect; Mary His Mother too HAD TO BE perfect.

Have a Blessed Christmas my friend!

Pat/PJM

 

[brb3]

Very thoughtful,

But heres what your overlooking,

God is and HAS to be “Perfect” right? RIGHT!

From this unchangable fact we can deduce the following:

Once God choose the path of mans salvation through Christ a “mother” for the Incarnation had to be chosen.

BECAUSE GOD is and MUST remain “perfect” this mother HAD to be
[absolutely had to be ] “Perfect[ed]”. In order for the Christ to become a “Perfect man” as well as “Perfect-God.” Nothing less would be acceptable to God’s Divine Just-nature.

This WAS accomplised through the merits of her Son [time does not exist for God]. So in an absolute sense Mary HAD to be conceived W/O Original sin. GOD CAN DO ANY GOOD THING:thumbsup: Then MARY HAD TOO by her own freewill choices cooperate FULLY with the super-abundant graces offered to her and choose NEVER to sin; not even one time in her life.

Keep in mind’ all pregnancies and births reflect GOD’S necessary involvement. There are many examples from Abram to John the Baptist where a pregnancy ONLY took place because of God’s DIRECT known intervention.

So in order for Christ the man to be perfect; Mary His Mother too HAD TO BE perfect.

Have a Blessed Christmas my friend!

Pat/PJM

Yes, but don’t we become fully graced, thru faith, confession, baptism & confirmation ?
THIS IS THE NORMATIVE MEANS to our adoption into Christ.

So, wouldn’t we of anticipated/ deduced that Christ might wish to start/build his Church via coming into this world thru the Normative Standard he established for us being used to first purify our Mother Mary ?

 

[brb3]

God made Mary and Satan hostile enemies. See Gen 3:15.

Yes, but that was not yet fulfilled in days of Moses ! Satan could not dispute with Mary before her existence. We too are also the hostile enemies of Satan…

 

[stewstew03]

Yes, but don’t we become fully graced, thru faith, confession, baptism & confirmation ?
THIS IS THE NORMATIVE MEANS to our adoption into Christ.

So, wouldn’t we of anticipated/ deduced that Christ might wish to start/build his Church via coming into this world thru the Normative Standard he established for us being used to first purify our Mother Mary ?

The “normative means” were unavailable before the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[stewstew03]

Yes, but that was not yet fulfilled in days of Moses ! Satan could not dispute with Mary before her existence. We too are also the hostile enemies of Satan…

It’s a prophecy.
Anyone who sins is no enemy of Satan.

 

[PJM]

=brb3;10168354]Yes, but don’t we become fully graced, thru faith, confession, baptism & confirmation ?
THIS IS THE NORMATIVE MEANS to our adoption into Christ.

So, wouldn’t we of anticipated/ deduced that Christ might wish to start/build his Church via coming into this world thru the Normative Standard he established for us being used to first purify our Mother Mary ?

No Why?

Because God cannot change who and what He IS. "Perfect.

"Malachi 3:6 “For I am the Lord, and I change not: and you the sons of Jacob are not consumed.”

Psalm 110: 4 “The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind,”

God cannot permit his “humanity” to detract from His Divinity by even the slighest possibility of an imperfection:thumbsup:

God creates the norms; but is not BOUND by them.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[brb3]

For the record …I do hold to the other 3 Marian Dogma. Why is the IC such a difficult one to reason thru ?

 

[GaryTaylor]

God is His infinite wisdom and Love for mankind, had a plan to re-establish Communion for mankind, His plan was and is Jesus Christ, the Living God.

From here one needs to reflect back to Adam and Eve. What are we to say of Eve prior to her disobedience?

When God chose to send His Son, would He have not thought of Eve when Mary came of mind? Would God the Almighty produce Mary and not Grace Her with everything which Eve was given plus, in regards to His Son?

This is why St Ireneaus makes the statement concerning Eves disobedience and Marys obedience which untied the knot.

God being the almighty, would he have not produced one perfectly Graced individual, and why would this Almighty God be subjected to time? Why would he not produce a better of Eve?

 

[Dolezal]

Yet, the first century Christians didn’t see Mary as different from themselves.

The earliest writings on the virgin birth of Christ and Mary’s perpetual virginity show that the early Christians regarded the Blessed Virgin as very different from themselves.

Tertullian explains the reason behind the virgin birth (though he was the only Father that denied Mary’s perpetual virginity), On Monogamy 8:

“For who was more worthily to perform the initiatory rite on the body of the Lord, than flesh similar in kind to that which conceived and gave birth to that (body)? And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband.”

The Gospel of James tells us that Mary was vowed to virginity, 6-9:

"And the child grew strong day by day; and when she was six months old, her mother set her on the ground to try whether she could stand, and she walked seven steps and came into her bosom; and she snatched her up, saying: As the Lord my God lives, you shall not walk on this earth until I bring you into the temple of the Lord. And she made a sanctuary in her bed-chamber, and allowed nothing common or unclean to pass through her. And she called the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews, and they led her astray. . . .

"And her months were added to the child. And the child was two years old, and Joachim said: Let us take her up to the temple of the Lord, that we may pay the vow that we have vowed, lest perchance the Lord send to us, and our offering be not received. And Anna said: Let us wait for the third year, in order that the child may not seek for father or mother. And Joachim said: So let us wait. And the child was three years old, and Joachim said: Invite the daughters of the Hebrews that are undefiled, and let them take each a lamp, and let them stand with the lamps burning, that the child may not turn back, and her heart be captivated from the temple of the Lord. . . .

". . . And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? . . .

“. . . And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. . . .”

Clement, Stromata 6.15:

“The Son of God – of Him who made the universe – assumed flesh, and was conceived in the virgin’s womb (as His material body was produced).”

7.6: "Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. “And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth,” says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself, and not from conjunction."

Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 1.1:

“You are . . . fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh . . . truly born of a virgin.”

Ephesians 19:

“The virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord.”

So, I don’t think they saw her as enjoying an Immaculate Conception birth.

Am I making a mistake to think the Apostles and early Christians didn’t see an IC for Mary ?

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was more or less implied by the early Fathers through analogies between Eve and the Virgin Mary. See for example Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 17. And this analogy by Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 12.9:

“These are excellent suggestions of the narratives: but the Jews still contradict, and do not yield to the statements concerning the rod, unless they may be persuaded by similar strange and supernatural births. Question them, therefore, in this way: of whom in the beginning was Eve begotten? What mother conceived her the motherless? But the Scripture says that she was born out of Adam’s side. Is Eve then born out of a man’s side without a mother, and is a child not to be born without a father, of a virgin’s womb? This debt of gratitude was due to men from womankind: for Eve was begotten of Adam, and not conceived of a mother, but as it were brought forth of man alone. Mary, therefore, paid the debt, of gratitude, when not by man but of herself alone in an immaculate way she conceived of the Holy Ghost by the power of God.”

Many Fathers wrote about the sinlessness of Mary. Augustine, On Nature and Grace 42:

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.

See the article on the Immaculate Conception on New Advent for more references.

Though not explicitly stated by the Fathers, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception followed necessarily from and is entirely coherent with early Christian belief.