Church Mariology making me nuts!

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnbres2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y
So, scripture in case of JOHN, clearly tells of his immaculate conception … but, does not do so about Mary. John’s parents were clearly barren thruout their lives … and now too aged to have children by normative means. Clearly John was conceived by H.S. …w/o sperm or ova from parents. John clearly was an IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED human… as taught in SACRED SCRIPTURE.

Am I wrong ?
Yes you are twice wrong, just as you were when you said something similar 150 posts ago. First in DENYING the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Secondly in putting forward the preposterous idea of John the Baptist being conceived immaculately—something even those who believe he was freed of sin in the womb do not claim. Further, you state John was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Outrageous!
 
Yes you are twice wrong, just as you were when you said something similar 150 posts ago. First in DENYING the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Secondly in putting forward the preposterous idea of John the Baptist being conceived immaculately—something even those who believe he was freed of sin in the womb do not claim. Further, you state John was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Outrageous!
Why is that outrageous ? There is more evidence for John’s miraculous birth than Mary’s !
 
You are mistaken in this. Mary, exalted as she was by God, was born a human creature through normal means to human parents. As such she required salvation like all men. In light of her future role as Mother of God, however, she was granted the saving grace made possible through Jesus in advance. For a Catholic, acceptance of this doctrine is not optional. That there is no wiggle room here is made clear in Ineffabilis Deus, the encyclical which formally defined as doctrine this long-held belief:
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 dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

The idea that Mary needed a Savior is not a recent one. Andrew of Crete, though not sharing the western concept of original sin, wrote in the 8th century:

This is Mary the Theotókos, the common refuge of all Christians, the first to be liberated from the original fall of our first parents.
As early as the 4th century, Gregory Nazianzen speaks of the purification of the Virgin Mary:
He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body…

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as we understand it today was clearly outlined by the great Franciscan John Duns Scotus over 700 years ago:
As a consequence of common generation, Mary would have had to contract original sin had she not been preserved by the grace of the Mediator.
Yes, Mary born by normal birth mechanisms…while John was born by miraculous means. Same as had been case for Isaac, from elderly patents.

Nevertheless, John’s birth appears even more special than Isaac’s … in that he was filled with HS while in the womb…and, probably never sinned( original or personal ones).
 
Lets examine scripture on this matter. Luke1:35 And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

Key points in the above: The angel is telling her what IS TO HAPPEN, in future tense. All will be the result of the HOLY SPIRIT coming to her [future tense]. She is what, — a 15 yo girl perhaps, at that point in her life.

Does anything here suggest she had a IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 15 year prior ?

On the other hand, look at Luke’s account … regarding birth of John the Baptizer.

Luke 1:5-6 Zechariah, … had a wife … and her name was Elizabeth. AND THEY WERE BOTH RIGHEOUS BEFORE GOD, WALKING IN ALL THE COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES OF THE LORD ‘blameless’ . — [sinless right ?]. This ‘blameless’ status … sets the stage for a miraculous event to happen to them.

Now verse 6. AND BOTH WERE BARREN, AND BOTH ADVANCED IN YEARS.

ZECHARIAH is a priest … so we are next told.
And, then the angel Gabriel tells him about the coming child in verse 15-17. “AND HE WILL BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, EVEN FROM THE WOMB. … AND HE WILL GO BEFORE HIM IN THE SPIRIT AND POWER OF ELIJAH, … TO MAKE READY FOR THE LORD A PEOPLE PREPARED.”

So, scripture in case of JOHN, clearly tells of his immaculate conception … but, does not do so about Mary. John’s parents were clearly barren thruout their lives … and now too aged to have children by normative means. Clearly John was conceived by H.S. …w/o sperm or ova from parents. John clearly was an IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED human… as taught in SACRED SCRIPTURE.

Am I wrong ?
Yes you are wrong. John, as scripture says, was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. Theologians regard this as referring to the visit of Mary to Elizabeth when John was 6 months post conception but 3 months pre-birth. In addition you seem to equate the word “blameless” with “sinless”. I have to ask you how were Zechariah and Elizabeth sinless? Who pardoned their sin or were they too immaculately concieved? Here the word ‘blameless’ does not mean sinless but refers to their keeping of the Law. But obeying the Law does not remit sin because if it did there would be no need for Jesus to save mankind. So while John was maybe born without sin, he was not concieved without sin.

Now let’s look a Mary. There is a Greek word that Luke uses in the angel’s salutation to Mary. The angel says, “Hail, full of grace…” He does not address Mary by name but by a quallity that she possesses. That quality being 'full of grace". Notice this is a quality that Mary already possesses before she agrees to be the Mother of Jesus. So her sinlessness does not start at fifteen or what ever age she is at the time of the angel’s visit. But more importantly, the English words, “full of grace” do not convey the full meaning oif the Greek word that Luke uses. That Greek word is kecharitomene.. Kecharitomene is a very unusual word as it is used only once in the scriptures. It is the perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was always graced, from her beginning [her conception] to the end of her earthly life. This fits in with the verse from Genesis 3:15:

" “and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel”

Enmity is a state of hostility or conflict and it exists between both Jesus and the serpent [Satan] as well as between Mary and the serpent. This conflict is, of course, sin. This same conflict existed between Adam and Eve and the serpent. Both Adam and Eve were created immaculate but both succumbed to sin. Jesus and Mary are the new Adam and Eve created sinless as were the original Adam and Eve. But unlike the original Adam and Eve neither Jesus nor Mary will succumb to sin.
 
So while John was maybe born without sin, he was not concieved without sin.

How would u know he was conceived IN SIN ?

His parents were beyond age for sexual IC. He was filled with HS in the womb. Clearly he had a unique lineage !!!
 
Yes, Mary born by normal birth mechanisms…while John was born by miraculous means. Same as had been case for Isaac, from elderly patents.

Nevertheless, John’s birth appears even more special than Isaac’s … in that he was filled with HS while in the womb…and, probably never sinned( original or personal ones).
So while John was maybe born without sin, he was not concieved without sin.

How would u know he was conceived IN SIN ?

His parents were beyond age for sexual IC. He was filled with HS in the womb. Clearly he had a unique lineage !!!
Huh? I don’t know that there is such a thing as being too old for sexual IC. There have been men who have fathered children in their 80’s. Women of course do stop ovulating but that does not mean that those women in the Bible that had children pass this time were not conceived the normal way. In fact, the opposite is shown. All it means is that God permitted one last ovulation.
 
+JMJ+

Actually, Mary did need to be atoned or saved by Christ’s sacrifice, in that she was saved before she could even be touched by the stain of Original Sin.

But everything else is about right as far as I can see 👍
Well there’s no way I’m going to get into this topic with you now as I see your predisposed with another exchange, i was wondering though since I’ve only read one of his books what you gather De Montfort felt about the pre saved doctrine. I can only accept it in a certain sense; but I can’t hold with it and probably never will. Thanks for the thumbbs up!
 
I find good biblical support for Mary being a chosen vessel of God. Scripture says the HS ENTERED her & Christ was conceived in her by the Holy Spirit. So, scripture supports her as being sinless, at the moment Christ was conceived
In the very one you read supposing that it meant that at that point in time the Lord was just then for the first time “with” her. Hail, full of grace the Lord is with thee. The Lord was always with her in every moment of her life, and she was always with the Lord in her heart in every moment of her life.
 
Jesus, I trust solely in you for my hope and salvation.
Do we have a solitary God? an unloving God?

We have a Triune God. A God who through scripture states is love. Does love flourish when you are bottled up alone or even if you and your wife are always alone and never seeing anyone else?

If we want to know about God we should also look to know about love and if we do that the Truth of Catholic teaching and the communion of saints comes into focus.

Love is communal; it is organic; it is growing; it is a community.

It is a heretical belief to be a Christian of fear and try to bind up your salvation in legalistic terms. Christ is and remains our judge and our mercy and God Who is our focus.

But in being that focus, God points us to His mother in the Bible and gives her to us. He surrounds himself with Apostles and states that God is God of the living. Yes, Mary and the saints are alive. God brings us spiritual life in abundance.

Love does not isolate, it shares the joy. In heaven and on earth. Peter’s Church has it right.
 
inkaneer;10079107:
So while John was maybe born without sin, he was not concieved without sin.

How would u know he was conceived IN SIN ?

His parents were beyond age for sexual IC. He was filled with HS in the womb. Clearly he had a unique lineage !!!
There is no verse stating that St John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit. He lept for joy at sound of Mary’s greeting and his mother was filled with the Holy Spirit.
 
brb3;10079300:
There is no verse stating that St John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit. He lept for joy at sound of Mary’s greeting and his mother
was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Wow fbl9…

How can u make such a fallacious statement ?
Have u taken time to read Luke’s account on topic… Chap. 1 ??
 
Interesting. Here is what the DRBO (Douay Rheims Bible Online) has to say for the relevant passage (up to the Magnificat) of Luke Chapter 1.

People may drawn their own conclusions.

Luke 1: 36: And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: [37] Because no word shall be impossible with God. [38] And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. [39] And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda. [40] And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth.
[41] And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: [42] And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. [43] And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? [44] For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. [45] And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.
 
Interesting. Here is what the DRBO (Douay Rheims Bible Online) has to say for the relevant passage (up to the Magnificat) of Luke Chapter 1.

People may drawn their own conclusions.

Luke 1: 36: And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: [37] Because no word shall be impossible with God. [38] And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. [39] And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda. [40] And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth.
[41] And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: [42] And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. [43] And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? [44] For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. [45] And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.
yes, and lets add another key text …1:15-17 “for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, AND HE SHALL BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, EVEN FROM HIS MOTHER’S WOMB. And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the Spirit and power of Elijah, …”
 
yes, and lets add another key text …1:15-17 “for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, AND HE SHALL BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, EVEN FROM HIS MOTHER’S WOMB. And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the Spirit and power of Elijah, …”
Absolutely.

However, I’m surprised that you didn’t notice that the poster who spoke of Elizabeth’s being filled with the Spirit was correct as well.

Something like, “Oh yes, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit but so was John if you read the passage a couple of paragraphs earlier” would have been nice.
 
Absolutely.

However, I’m surprised that you didn’t notice that the poster who spoke of Elizabeth’s being filled with the Spirit was correct as well.

Something like, “Oh yes, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit but so was John if you read the passage a couple of paragraphs earlier” would have been nice.
Tatum Ergo …

Being filled with HS isn’t getting to the crux of our discussion. All Christians are filled with HS @ our Rebirth. That is a NORMATIVE & ESSENTIAL matter.

What is key to the discussion, is WHEN it happens. For most it’s in adulthood. For John the Baptist, it was as a Fetus. Was it at his conception …or at month #6 ? I argue it was at conception.

With regards to Mary, …was it at age 15, or earlier ? Sacred Scripture suggests it was when Gabriel spoke to her. Others here believe it was earlier, but, they can’t ( or haven’t yet) made that case from the scriptures …or shown us that early Apostolic traditions believed this the case.

They, can only make claims based on rather recent Papal revelations/ declarations …which followed reports of visions of Mary to children.
 
+JMJ+
They, can only make claims based on rather recent Papal revelations/ declarations …which followed reports of visions of Mary to children.
Which are actually stronger evidence than interpretations of Scripture.

Oh, correction: the infallible definition of the Immaculate Heart of Mary was made before the apparition at Lourdes.
 
fbl9;10080628:
Wow fbl9…

How can u make such a fallacious statement ?
Have u taken time to read Luke’s account on topic… Chap. 1 ??
guess i shuld have read when the angel was speaking to St.John the baptist’s “unbeleiving” father.

you seem to be making even greater fallacious staements yourself, if i were you i would lay off the tude.

brb3 why do you ingore the angel’s greeting to Mary “full of grace” also you seem to ingore “Hail” a greeting used to address royalty. what about what Jesus said about the least in the kingdom is greater than St.John the baptist.
 
brb3;10081273:
guess i shuld have read when the angel was speaking to St.John the baptist’s “unbeleiving” father.

you seem to be making even greater fallacious staements yourself, if i were you i would lay off the tude.

brb3 why do you ingore the angel’s greeting to Mary “full of grace” also you seem to ingore “Hail” a greeting used to address royalty. what about what Jesus said about the least in the kingdom is greater than St.John the baptist.
I don’t ignore it, but add it to the Entire testimony on Mary. What amazes me is how Catholics ignore &/or downplay the testimony regarding John the Baptizer.

Its always/only the Song of Mary ( tooting her own horn ) & not a word ever on the Song of Zechariah ( testifying to the FULL GRACING of John by the Holy Spirit ) !!
 
fbl9;10082712:
I don’t ignore it, but add it to the Entire testimony on Mary. What amazes me is how Catholics ignore &/or downplay the testimony regarding John the Baptizer.

Its always/only the Song of Mary ( tooting her own horn ) & not a word ever on the Song of Zechariah ( testifying to the FULL GRACING of John by the Holy Spirit ) !!
you obviously know nothing of the Liturgy of the Hours.

peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top