Could Mary have sinned?

[Mannyfit75]

Manny - i appreciate your effort with your analogy with vomit - but again my friend your analogy is not biblical. The temple of the living God can now be found to reside in man - what - do you not know that ye are the temple of the living God? The kingdom of Heaven is within. Christ abides in His people even though they sin. Whereas Christ hates sin, this does not mean that He does not cease to dwell within them when they sin for He says that He will never leave nor forsake His own. Although it is very grievious (grieve not the Spirit), this does not mean that Christ departs from them.

Your belief is unbiblical. I just don’t buy into your fallible interpretation. You have not find a one verse that Mary sinned. I have show you from Scripture about Mary’s obedience to God. It is complete.

Mary could have choose to sin but she didn’t. She cooperated with God’s grace and therefore she never SINNED.

Manny - your logic for Mary being as the ark is a self-imposed one. No where do the beloved apostles or the Lord Jesus Himself teach this. Rather, again, His believers are the temple of the living God which will in a day to come finally be brought together as the bride of Christ adorned for the Lord Himself. His believers are the ones who are to bear and bring forth His Gospel into all the world.

Well, the analogy of the Ark of the OT and Ark of the NT is unparallel. I base this on the following passage from the Bible.

There are several direct parallels between between the Old Testament accounts of the Ark and the account of Mary in the Gospel of Luke:

The words of Ex. 40:34-38, referring to the cloud of the Lord’s presence “covering” the tent of the Ark are echoed in Gabriel’s words to Mary in Luke 1:35: “…the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow.”
David greets the Ark in fearful awe with the words “How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam.6:9); Elizabeth greets Mary with the words, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
In 2 Samuel 6:10-12 the ark is sent to the hill country of Judea and stays at the household of Obededom for three months; similary, Mary journeys to Elizabeth’s house and stays there three months.
Just as David danced in the presence of the Ark (2 Sam. 6:14), the babe in Elizabeth’s womb (John the Baptist) dances in the presence of God’s Shekhinah in Mary’s womb (Luke 1:41).
Additionally, in Revelation, St. John, immediately after seeing the Ark in heaven, sees the woman “clothed with the sun” who bears the Child who will rule the world (Revelation 11:19-12:5).

This teaching is found in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. A sermon attributed to St. Athanasius addresses the Blessed Virgin thus: “O Ark of the new covenant, clad on all sides with purity in place of gold; the one in whom is found the golden vase with its true manna, that is the flesh in which lies the God-head.” St. Gregory Thaumaturgus wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

Those who defile the temple, God will destroy. Why was uzza destroyed? He disobeyed the Lord and the Lord slew him. Who are the temples of the living God now? Who has Christ within them, the hope of glory - His believers. Those who are false professors who hold another Gospel - them the Lord will slay at the day of judgement for their faith was not of the faith of the Son of God and that according to His Word - perhaps by Grace alone through faith alone by His Word alone.

Thanks for your time! - i do appreciate it. I do respect that you allow others to speak their minds even if you believe them to be in anathema.

Sincerely,

tom

Sorry Tom, I don’t believe in Faith alone. I do believe in grace but faith alone is Martin Luther’s theology… That’s man-made its not from God.

 

[Good_Fella]

I have read someone’s reply that takes Mary’s wonderful response (magnificant) at that time and then applies that to her whole life - I am the handmaiden of the Lord - be it done unto me as you have said. This is not biblical nor a good offer for logic. Mary was indeed blessed and full of grace and the Lord was certainly with her! But this does not equate to being sinless. Rather the scriptures declare that He came unto His own and His own did not receive Him. We must be careful not to interject dogma where the authority does not declare it to be so…I do not remember where Paul, Peter, Jude, Mark, Luke, Mathew or John declare the tradition (teaching) that Mary was sinless. Once traditions are added that are outside the authority - these traditions must be examined for agreement with the truthfulness of scriptures for we will be judged not by traditions of men but rather the Word of the Lord.

He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. {John 1, 11}

This verse fulfills the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 69, 8: that the Messiah would be rejected by God’s own chosen people Israel. I fail to see how it is connected with the sinless nature of the Virgin Mary. On the contrary, she accepted the Messiah by freely consenting to conceive and bear him in accordance with God’s will.

Mary said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me as you have said.”
{Luke 1, 38}

Someone who has received the grace of God (Sanctifying or Habitual Grace) cannot be in a state of sin as long as this grace endures. To understand what Luke is affirming, we must place this verse in context with other passages in his Gospel concerning Mary: 1, 28, 45, 46; 11, 27-28. These passages must not be divorced from each other, for they form the picture of Mary perceived by the evangelist. Meanwhile, we must keep in mind that Luke is the first known Christian - a true Catholic - to have drawn a parallel between Mary and the incorruptible and undefiled Ark of the Covenant by alluding to 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. If we take single passages and fit them in a harmonious whole, we will see what the Lord is revealing to us through his apostle. Ignatius of Antioch {Epistle to the Ephesians (c.A.D. 110)} and Justyn Martyr {Dialogue with Trypho (A.D. 155) are the earliest known Church Fathers (no less apostles) to have invoked Mary as the New Eve. Ignatius acknowledges Jesus as both the Only-begotten Son of God and the offspring of Mary, alluding to the prophecy in Genesis 3, 15: “I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman (newly formed by the grace of God in the person of Mary) and between her seed ( the Messiah) and your seed (original sin).” Justin Martyr develops the theme of Mary as the New Eve even further by affirming that the Messiah (the New Adam) came forth from a sinless Virgin ( the anti-type of Eve) who believed in the word of God and accepted his will to conceive and bear the child. Mary’s ‘Fiat’ undid the disobedience of a sinful Eve as she chose to conceive the Word of God instead of rejecting it. As the anti-type of our ancestral mother, Mary could not have possessed the sinful inclination shown by Eve in her disobedience to God for she was created to fashion the New Adam. A sinless Eve came forth from a sinless Adam who inclined themselves to sin. But God intervened to create a sinless virgin who would fashion the sinless new Man, both of whom would remain sinless in opposition to Satan and his seed. The Fall had to be reversed in all its minute aspects according to the wisdom of God. Justin Martyr clearly perceived this divine truth, and he understood that Mary’s ‘Fiat’ brought about the fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 3, 15. His perception is in keeping with the Gospel of Luke, in which Mary is alluded to as the incorruptible and undefiled Ark of the Covenant that carries the Word of God. If Mary had ever inclined herself to sin against God, she could no longer be the New Eve, leaving the New Adam without his companion in God’s wise scheme of reversing the Fall and salvation.

Church dogma is not an interjection. And Scripture is not the sole medium of divine revelation. Catholics agree with our Protestant brethren that Scripture is sufficient in its material content, but we beg to differ with Protestants who believe that Scripture is also formally sufficient. Not everything in Scripture is made explicit, and so it must be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition by the Apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church. The Apostles never explicitly wrote that Mary was sinless, but neither did they write that the Holy Spirit is God. These theological truths were formally made explicit and definitive in Church dogma.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Old_Scholar]

Refuted above…‘Brethren of the Lord’ & Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers*)More rhetoric…as if because you say it it is so. I disagree and have made my case unlike you.Yeah, as a matter of fact I do.If you say so… but my Bible has Revelation 12:1 in it. So then by your thinking expressed here, then Jesus was a sinner in need of baptism since He insisted that John baptize Him. It’s the very same fallacious logic.

The only reason “full of grace” is there is because it was added to the RCC Bible. Strictly a no-no according to Scripture. It doesn’t appear in any of the older copies.

 

[Old_Scholar]

It doesn’t disqualify them as historical sources just because they are later.

And… you obviously do not know what sources I speak of because the ones I am referring to date from the 1st & 2nd century. They can be found in this book.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510HNZQ8HQL.AA240.jpg
The Lost Books of the Bible [ILLUSTRATED] (Hardcover)
by Solomon J. Schepps (Foreword), William Hone (Compiler)

No one, but no one has any idea when those books were written. I have a copy of it and no one has any idea who wrote them as well. They weren’t “lost”, they were never a part of the Bible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The only reason “full of grace” is there is because it was added to the RCC Bible. Strictly a no-no according to Scripture. It doesn’t appear in any of the older copies.

For scholar, you sure don’t know your Bible history.

The Latin Vulgate written in the fifth Century had Gratia Plena which means full of grace.

The Wcycliff Bible also have full of grace and the Tyndale’s Bible also have it full of grace. The Catholic Church didn’t add full of grace.

 

[Truthstalker]

For scholar, you sure don’t know your Bible history.

The Latin Vulgate written in the fifth Century had Gratia Plena which means full of grace.

The Wcycliff Bible also have full of grace and the Tyndale’s Bible also have it full of grace. The Catholic Church didn’t add full of grace.

OS would have had a better argument if he had said that “full of grace” is a poor translation of the Greek, and that they didn’t add it, they just mistranslated it, and then built theology on their mistranslation. There is some potency in that argument.

The claim that Catholics have always everywhere universally believed in Mary’s sinlessness is absurd. Earlier in this thread I showed that several ECF believed she sinned, not just that she inherited sin, but that she herself sinned. I ran across some interesting things Augustine said;

Thus all, without one exception, were dead in sins, whether original or voluntary sins, sins of ignorance, or sins committed against knowledge; and for all the dead there died the one only person who lived, that is, who had no sin whatever,

(bold added by me)

found at the New Advent Web site in City of God XX6,
newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm

and he also said in the Narrations on the Psalms, Psalm 35, section 14, newadvent.org/fathers/1801035.htm

He assumed flesh, of the same lump which had deserved death by sin. For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin

This is a far cry from an insistence on Mary being without sin. It also says some thing about the incarnation that is rather startling.

Furthermore, looking at the book of Romans, that famous “all have sinned” passage (3:23) is linked to being justified by grace. Jesus came to call the sinners, not the righteous, and to heal the sick, not the well. All were shut up under the Law that they may be saved. If Mary had not sinned, she would not have been able to appropriate God’s grace, because she would have stood upon her own righteousness, not the far greater and infinite righteousness of God. To insist that Mary never sinned leaves the door open to say that she was not a partaker of the new covenant and that we can win heaven if we are, like Mary, good enough. We cannot, because Mary was not good enough to merit heaven on her own. She had a Savior Who imparted to her His righteousness and His grace. If she was smart (and I think she was) she rejected her own righteousness in favor of a far greater righteousness. That door, the door of attaining heaven on our own, must be firmly shut and denied with everything within us.

God is no respecter of persons. You do not see Jesus giving Mary any special treatment in the Gospels, affirming that she was herself indeed blessed, or had intrinsic righteousness {at one point she was not walking with the disciples and arrived outside to talk to Jesus, who was surrounded by His disciples, whom He called His brother and sister and mother, in direct contrast to his family - including Mary). If she had any righteousness, it was on the same basis anyone else receives it: doing the will of the Father in the power of God: sanctification. There is not special status for Mary given in the Scriptures in terms of anything that we cannot also appropriate. We can all become highly favored, we can all become “full of grace.” In that sense we can take Mary as our model and learn obedience, we can all be remembered by the Lord who has regard for our humble state. If she sinned, it was wiped clean as if it had never been. So it is with us also.

 

[Truthstalker]

the new winds of doctrine like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide… both imaginary Christian teachings

So doctrinal development is ok only if done as a papal pronouncement? If the church hierarchy had done its job the reformation would have been purely internal. The church was corrupt and political and paid no attention to things like doctrine and morals, and so Catholics complain when someone rediscovers the Greek and Hebrew texts and what they really say when you scrape off human interpretations heaped on each other for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Catholic scholars are hesitant, for example, to explore the Greek New Testament because it shows the Vulgate in a bad light as a bad translation. But Catholic theology is based on the Vulgate and Trent swears by the Latin. So you have to defend a house built on sand linguistically. No wonder Catholics get so irate at things like suggesting Mary sinned. I’d be mad, too, if my church demanded I believe something that can only be supported in Scripture by admitting 1) it isn’t there and 2) nothing contradicts it because 3) a way can be found to take passages that indicate she might have sinned in a way to say that somehow she didn’t.

Could Mary sin? Interesting question. But the heavy handed, overstatements of Catholic apologetics seen in this thread make me wonder about the hollowness of the Catholic position. “ALL SCHOLARS AGREE’” you cry out, until I show some exceptions. Protestants are spoken of contemptuously, without respect (against Forum rules?) by the declaration of their teachings as “imaginary”, etc. Sola Scriptura is spoken of universally with contempt on this Forum by Catholics. Somehow shooting down SS is supposed to make us believe in Tradition? This is argumentation for Mary being sinless? Unconvincing. Emotional. Bordering on insulting. But all too common.

 

[Old_Scholar]

For scholar, you sure don’t know your Bible history.

The Latin Vulgate written in the fifth Century had Gratia Plena which means full of grace.

The Wcycliff Bible also have full of grace and the Tyndale’s Bible also have it full of grace. The Catholic Church didn’t add full of grace.

I’m sure you know that Wcycliff was a Roman Catholic who disagreed with the Roman Catholic beliefs and declared that all truth and authority was in the Scriptures.

Tyndale was declared a heretic by the Roman Catholics and burned at the stake.

Hard to imagine a Roman Catholic wanting to believe either of these guys…

Do you believe the statement was in the original Greek?

 

[Church_Militant]

So doctrinal development is ok only if done as a papal pronouncement? If the church hierarchy had done its job the reformation would have been purely internal. The church was corrupt and political and paid no attention to things like doctrine and morals,

Actually there was quite substantial reformation in progress in the church well prior to the protestant revolt, but your post is not factually accurate.

I’ve read Luther’s thesis and it certainly does not support the allegations that you have made.

and so Catholics complain when someone rediscovers the Greek and Hebrew texts and what they really say when you scrape off human interpretations heaped on each other for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Really? I don’t believe for a second that you can support this with accurate historic facts. In the case of Luther and all the other “pillars of the reformation” there is no record that I’ve ever seen that says that “someone rediscovers the Greek and Hebrew texts and what they really say”. In fact, (again citing Luther’s errors) he mistranslated his German scriptures and even did so knowing full well that he was actually injecting his “human interpretations” into the text to support his error of Sola Fide. He added the German word for “alone” to the his text of Romans 3:28 and even admitted it and insisted that he “would have that way” even though he knew that there is nothing to justify it in the Greek or Latin.

Catholic scholars are hesitant, for example, to explore the Greek New Testament because it shows the Vulgate in a bad light as a bad translation. But Catholic theology is based on the Vulgate and Trent swears by the Latin. So you have to defend a house built on sand linguistically. No wonder Catholics get so irate at things like suggesting Mary sinned. I’d be mad, too, if my church demanded I believe something that can only be supported in Scripture by admitting 1) it isn’t there and 2) nothing contradicts it because 3) a way can be found to take passages that indicate she might have sinned in a way to say that somehow she didn’t.

Right, yeah…feel free to open a new thread and prove this, because I don’t think you can. It makes nice rhetorical propaganda though. I’d have to say that the Douay-Rheims Bible which is word for word the Vulgate is a far sight better than it’s later contemporary the King James Version.

Could Mary sin? Interesting question. But the heavy handed, overstatements of Catholic apologetics seen in this thread make me wonder about the hollowness of the Catholic position. “ALL SCHOLARS AGREE’” you cry out, until I show some exceptions.

I don’t see any of this “proof” of yours, so far all I see is a lot of vitriolic rhetoric and polemics. Bring on the facts if you have them.

Protestants are spoken of contemptuously, without respect (against Forum rules?) by the declaration of their teachings as “imaginary”, etc.

I would have to say that the level of charity so far on this thread has been pretty good so far until you came along with all this vitriol.

As for the term “imaginary”…Well, where would you expect false teachings to come from, since someone had to sit down and imagine those things for them to begin to formulate those doctrines.

Sola Scriptura is spoken of universally with contempt on this Forum by Catholics. Somehow shooting down SS is supposed to make us believe in Tradition?

Not at all. The point is that SS is a gross fundamental error in doctrine upon which the vast majority of n-C doctrines are built, and as you said yourself, “So you have to defend a house built on sand…” and the entire house of cards which is the modern post reformation theology shakes in the wind of their own new doctrines of men. As you said, “No wonder” non-Catholics"get so irate at things like suggesting" that the foundational doctrine upon which all else that they believe is an unscriptural error.

The only way one can believe it is if one reads one’s own preconceived interpretations onto the “supporting” scriptures.

“This is argumentation” against the Catholic faith? “Unconvincing. Emotional. Bordering on insulting. But all too common.” Sorry, but you just jumped headlong into the very things that you condemn.

If you have real substantive proofs of your assertions then by all means open a new thread (rather than derail this one.) and as they say on the street, “don’t sing it, bring it” and we’ll see what gives.

Oh… and since you brought up the Forum Rules, we do have good moderation here and if you think you find a post that violates those rules, then knock yourself out. How To Report A Problem Post
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m sure you know that Wcycliff was a Roman Catholic who disagreed with the Roman Catholic beliefs and declared that all truth and authority was in the Scriptures.

And that was a good thing why? The fact is that Wycliff’s translation was not all that it’s cracked up to be. That was the main thing that got him into trouble.

But as the saying goes…“even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”

Tyndale was declared a heretic by the Roman Catholics and burned at the stake.

Yeah, and Martin Luther was a real sweetheart about the peasant revolt…

Hard to imagine a Roman Catholic wanting to believe either of these guys…

With good reason… every so often they may have stated something that was true, but when they erred on doctrines they went way off base.

Do you believe the statement was in the original Greek?

It is.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception

, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a 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 graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I’m sure you know that Wcycliff was a Roman Catholic who disagreed with the Roman Catholic beliefs and declared that all truth and authority was in the Scriptures.

Tyndale was declared a heretic by the Roman Catholics and burned at the stake.

Yes they did. Most of these two men translated their Bible and their translation itself contain errors. They lack any footnotes, or explanations. They were condemned because of their disobedient to the church.

Though indeed,their translation had error. The Latin Vulgate does have full of grace in Latin.

Hard to imagine a Roman Catholic wanting to believe either of these guys…

The original Greek which full of grace derives from is kecharitomene. If you want to get deep into this I highly recommend you read this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=210439

 

[Mannyfit75]

Could Mary sin? Interesting question. But the heavy handed, overstatements of Catholic apologetics seen in this thread make me wonder about the hollowness of the Catholic position. “ALL SCHOLARS AGREE’” you cry out, until I show some exceptions. Protestants are spoken of contemptuously, without respect (against Forum rules?) by the declaration of their teachings as “imaginary”, etc. Sola Scriptura is spoken of universally with contempt on this Forum by Catholics. Somehow shooting down SS is supposed to make us believe in Tradition? This is argumentation for Mary being sinless? Unconvincing. Emotional. Bordering on insulting. But all too common.

In my opinion if Mary had sin, it would be an insult to God. She is the Mother of the Word of God. It is from her flesh that Jesus have his flesh. It is also insulting because it is through God’s grace that Mary cooperated and decided not to sin. She had no sin. She is perfect. She is the New Eve, like the Eve, she was created immaculate. Unlike the Old Eve, who is disobedient to God’s Law, Mary remain obedient to the will of the Father.

The Immaculate Conception (IC) and the Development of Doctrine
(excerpted from my debate with JasonTE on the Catholic Church)

“The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a classic example of the development of doctrine” (Mariology edited by Juniper Carol, volume 1, page 18). Why? Because Catholic theologians have distinguished three stages in the progressive awareness of a revealed truth over time:

(1) the first is “implicit acceptance”
(2) second is “the period of discussion and controversy”
(3) third is “the doctrine is received by the entire Church” or “finally even solemnly defined”

Without going into all the details, these three stages fit the Holy Trinity, the canon of Scripture, and the Marian dogmas. On the Immaculate Conception, the first stage is “the tranquil acceptance of the unique graces and privileges of Mary…The early Christians accepted Mary’s singular position as Mother of God, as ever a virgin, as all-holy, as the new Eve. Thereby they implicitly accepted the Immaculate Conception, which is implied by the divine motherhood.” During this period the first liturgical evidences appear: feasts of the Conception of St. Anne, hymns, homilies, etc (Mariology edited by Juniper Carol, volume 1 page 17ff, 344ff).

((continue))

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Catholic Church believes Mary is all-holy and free from sin (along with the Orthodox, and the Protestant Reformers, see the citations from Calvinist Max Thurian below), even from the first moment of her existence (from her conception).

Pope Pius IX and the Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus

Let’s discuss the basis for the Immaculate Conception according to the encyclical of Pope Pius IX that defined this doctrine as dogma (Ineffabilis Deus, 1854). The argument from “fittingness” and the Divine Maternity (Mary as Theotokos or Mother of God) is what the Pope refers to as the supreme reason for this Marian privilege:

“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” (cf. Genesis 3:15).

This is a sufficient reason for the IC by itself: Mary is the Mother of God, so God would want the greatest mother of all (a holy and sinless Mother by the grace of God).

The evidence for the doctrine of the IC (which includes Mary’s personal sinlessness) in Scripture is good, but not great. The Pope refers to Genesis 3:15 (the Woman, Eve who disobeyed and fell into sin paralleled by the early Fathers with Mary the New Eve who obeyed and did not fall into sin); Proverbs 8 (the Wisdom of God); Luke chapter 1 (especially Full of Grace [Greek: kecharitomene] and Blessed Among Women); the various Marian types – the Ark of Noah; holy Ark of the Covenant; Ladder of Jacob; Burning Bush of Moses; the impregnable tower; that garden that cannot be corrupted; the resplendent city of God; the temple of God full of the glory of God; and other types (cf. Luke 1 with 2 Samuel 6; Song of Songs 4:4,12; Psalm 87(86):1; Isaiah 6:1-7; etc).

Here is a grammatical point on the phrase “full of grace” from Fr. Mateo’s booklet Refuting the Attack on Mary:

“…Luke 1:28 uses the perfect passive participle kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes ‘continuance of a completed action’; ‘completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem.’ [Blass/DeBrunner and Smyth]. On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as ‘completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.’”

The biblical parallels between the Blessed Mother/Virgin Mary, the Church, Israel, and the Holy Ark of the Covenant are quite clear. From The Truth About Mary by Robert Payesko (see also his site www.Mariology.com)

 

[Mannyfit75]

“In introducing Mary as the Ark, [Luke] draws on Old Testament texts that any Jewish reader would understand and identify with the Ark. Examples here include the similitude between Exodus 40:34,35 and Luke 1:35 and the striking parallels between the Elizabeth’s visit to Mary and the transportation of the Ark of the Covenant from the house of Abinadab to that of Obededom and to Jerusalem…”

OT Ark of the Covenant NT Blessed Mother of God

“The cloud covered the Tent of meeting and the glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle.” Exodus 40:34 “The power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow. And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God.” Luke 1:35
“However can the Ark of Yahweh (= My Lord) come to me?” 2 Samuel 6:9 “Why should I be honored with a visit from the mother of My Lord?” Luke 1:43
“And David danced before the Lord with all his might … So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.” 2 Samuel 6:14-15 “As soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.” Luke 1:44
“And the Ark of the Lord continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months.” 2 Samuel 6:11 “And Mary abode with her about three months.” Luke 1:56
“And the Lord blessed Obededom and all his household.” 2 Samuel 6:11 [fertility is associated with blessing] “Now Elisabeth’s full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.” Luke 1:57

The Immaculate Conception and the Church Fathers

Granted, none of these are compelling arguments for the IC doctrine from purely modern “exegetical” or “grammatical-historical” methods of biblical interpretation. But the Fathers (and the Catholic Doctors and medieval theologians who followed them later) did not believe the doctrine based on these “modern” methods of exegesis. The Fathers and Doctors were clearly not “Sola Scripturists” as modern “Protestant evangelicals” might be today. We know this from the way they used Scripture to demonstrate various Marian beliefs. These “biblical parallels” were compelling and sufficient for the Church Fathers (and the Church’s Liturgy) who used such texts and types for Mary’s holiness:

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Immaculate Conception and the Church Fathers

Granted, none of these are compelling arguments for the IC doctrine from purely modern “exegetical” or “grammatical-historical” methods of biblical interpretation. But the Fathers (and the Catholic Doctors and medieval theologians who followed them later) did not believe the doctrine based on these “modern” methods of exegesis. The Fathers and Doctors were clearly not “Sola Scripturists” as modern “Protestant evangelicals” might be today. We know this from the way they used Scripture to demonstrate various Marian beliefs. These “biblical parallels” were compelling and sufficient for the Church Fathers (and the Church’s Liturgy) who used such texts and types for Mary’s holiness:

“In such allusions the Fathers taught that the exalted dignity of the Mother of God, her spotless innocence, and her sanctity unstained by any fault, had been prophesied in a wonderful manner…they celebrated the august Virgin as the spotless dove, as the holy Jerusalem, as the exalted throne of God, as the ark and house of holiness which Eternal Wisdom built, and as that Queen who, abounding in delights and leaning on her Beloved, came forth from the mouth of the Most High, entirely perfect, beautiful, most dear to God and never stained with the least blemish.” (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus)

Where did the Fathers get such ideas about the Blessed Mother if they are not found explicitly or implicitly in Scripture or passed on from Christ and His Apostles themselves?

The more compelling argument comes from the Fathers and early ecclesiastical writers who universally affirmed Mary’s holiness and sinlessness (with few exceptions). The evidence for the doctrine of the IC (or Mary’s personal sinlessness) in the Fathers and Doctors is not just good, but great. Mariologist Juniper Carol sums it up:

“The conviction of the writers relative to her holiness is founded, necessarily, in revealed truth which became more explicit with the passing of time. In denying that she herself had ever sinned, the Fathers placed her merit in a distinct class above the rest of human-kind, and no eulogy was too great to describe her, nor were any words adequate to convey the measure of her holiness. She was “most pure”; “inviolate”; “unstained”; “unspotted”; “blameless”; “entirely immune from sin”; “blessed above all”; “most innocent.” If she was free from sin without qualification, then why not also from original sin?” (Juniper Carol, Mariology, volume 1, page 348, and see all the evidence in these three volumes).

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Anglican historian JND Kelly (in Early Christian Doctrines) does refer to Origen, then Basil and John Chrysostom as doubting the sinlessness of Mary, but also notes that St. Ephraem in Syria did believe her “free from every stain, like her Son.” Let’s examine the fuller evidence from the Fathers and Doctors. First, the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

“But these Greek writers [who doubted Mary’s sinlessness] cannot be said to express an Apostolic tradition, when they express their private and singular opinions. Scripture and tradition agree in ascribing to Mary the greatest personal sanctity; She is conceived without the stain of original sin; she shows the greatest humility and patience in her daily life (Luke 1:38,48); she exhibits an heroic patience under the most trying circumstances (Luke 2:7,35,48; John 19:25-27). When there is question of sin, Mary must always be excepted.” (Catholic Encyclopedia [1913], on “Blessed Virgin Mary”)

Juniper Carol writes that “St. Augustine’s opinion is the real attitude of Christian antiquity.” What was Augustine’s view on the personal sinlessness of the Blessed Mother?

“Now with the exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom, out of respect for the Lord, I do not propose to have a single question raised on the subject of sin – after all, how do we know what greater degree of grace for a complete victory over sin was conferred on her who merited to conceive and bring forth Him who all admit was without sin – to repeat then: with the exception of this Virgin, if we could bring together into one place all those holy men and women, while they lived here, and ask them whether they were without sin, what are we to suppose that they would have replied?” (St. Augustine, De natura et gratia PL 44:267, from Carol Mariology, volume 1, page 15)

As mentioned some of the Eastern theologians “appear to have spoken of imperfections in the Virgin, and even of positive faults” while the Fathers St. Ephraem (c. 310-378) and St. Epiphanius (c. 315-403) “seem to have escaped succumbing to the renowned authority of Origen” (Carol Mariology, volume 1, page 352) who first implied Mary had minor faults. Subsequent Fathers and Saints in the East are clearer on the complete sinlessness of Mary: Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia (d. 430); St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 446); Hesychius of Jerusalem (d. 450); Basil of Seleucia (d. 458); St. James of Sarug (452-519), St. Anastasius I (d. 598); St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. 637); St. Modestus (d. 634) another patriarch of Jerusalem; St. John Damascene (c. 675-749); St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 806); Joseph Hymnographus (d. 833); Georgius Nicomediensis (friend and contemporary of Photius); Euthymius, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 917); Petrus, Bishop of Argo (d. 920); and on and on.

Among the Western theologians besides St. Augustine we have St. Ambrose of Milan (333-397) in the fourth century; (St. Hilary appears to be the lone exception in the West who had doubts); St. Peter Chrysologus in the fifth; St. Maximus of Turin (d. 470); Sedulius a writer of hymns; St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspa (d. 533); St. Venantius Fortunatus, Bishop of Poitiers (d. 609); St. Ildephonse of Toledo (d. 666); Ambrose Autpertus (d. 778); Paulus Warnefridus; Haymon, Bishop of Alberstadt (d. 853); Paschasius Radbertus (d. 860); St. Fulbert (d. 1028); then we have the controversy in the West leading to the solution by John Duns Scotus (1270-1308). That is a fuller picture of the historical evidence and development of the IC doctrine (see Carol Mariology, volume 1, pages 328ff).

The most famous Doctor to dispute the IC is St. Thomas Aquinas, but even he was absolutely clear on the personal sinlessness of the Mother of God:

“Since Mary would not have been a worthy mother of God if she had ever sinned, we assert without qualification that Mary never committed a sinful act, fatal or non-fatal: You are wholly beautiful, my love, and without blemish. Christ is the source of grace, author of it as God and instrument of it as man, and, since Mary was closest to Christ in giving him his human nature, she rightly received from him fullness of grace: grace in such abundance as to bring her closest in grace to its author, receiving into herself the one who was full of every grace [for others], and, by giving birth to him, bringing grace to all.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica IIIa:27.4-5)

 

[Mannyfit75]

Catholic Marian Doctrine and the Protestant Reformers

If one were a “historic Protestant” one should believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, as well as her unparalleled holiness. For example, Calvinist theologian Max Thurian in Mary, Mother of All Christians (1963) notes:

“A very ancient tradition of the Church affirms a perpetual virginity of Mary; and the Reformers of the sixteenth century themselves confessed ‘Mariam semper virginem’ [Mary ever-Virgin]…The entire tradition of the Church has held to the perpetual virginity of Mary as a sign of her dedication and of the fullness of God’s gift of which she was the object. The Reformers themselves respected this belief…For Calvin and the other Reformers accept the traditional view that Mary had only one son, the Son of God, who had been to her the fullness of grace and joy…In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how UNANIMOUS they are in all that concerns Mary’s holiness and perpetual virginity.” (Thurian, pages 37-40, 89, 197)

Heinrich Bullinger, Cranmer’s brother-in-law, Zwingli’s successor said:

“What pre-eminence in the eyes of purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them…” (cited in Thurian).

French Reformed pastor Charles Drelincourt, who well represents the Reformed belief of the 17th century:

“We do not simply believe that God has favoured the holy and blessed Virgin more than all the Patriarchs and the Prophets, but also that He has exalted her above all Seraphim. The angels can only qualify as servants of the Son of God, the creatures and workmanship of his hands; but the holy Virgin is not only the servant and the creature but also the Mother of this great and living God.” (cited in Thurian)

In this marvelous book by Calvinist theologian Max Thurian (he later became a Catholic), which Catholic Scripture scholar Fr. Raymond Brown called at the time “not only the best Protestant evaluation of the Mariological question, but far better than many Catholic treatments” (see Brown, Gospel of John [Anchor Bible, 1969], page 107), Thurian states:

“…we can assert nothing other than this, for this is the most as well as the least that we can state to those who on the one hand would wish to speak of Mary as if she were sinful or on the other as separated from our condition as human creatures. We do not see how either the one or the other can be legitimately proved from the Gospel. Mary, full of grace, Daughter of Zion, the Mother of God Incarnate, the symbol of Mother Church is holy because in her the Gospel sees the living sign of a unique and pre-destined choice of the Lord, the response of faith from a perfectly human creature, but one who was also totally obedient.” (Mary, Mother of All Christians [Herder, 1963] by Max Thurian, page 25)

Finally, a comment by eminent Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff is relevant as to the Eastern/Byzantine difference on their view of Original Sin and the definition of the Immaculate Conception:

“Quotations can easily be multiplied, and they give clear indications that the Mariological piety of the Byzantines would probably have led them to accept the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as it was defined in 1854 [by Pope Pius IX], if only they had shared the Western doctrine of original sin.” (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, page 148)

 

[Good_Fella]

Catholic Marian Doctrine and the Protestant Reformers

If one were a “historic Protestant” one should believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, as well as her unparalleled holiness. For example, Calvinist theologian Max Thurian in Mary, Mother of All Christians (1963) notes:

“A very ancient tradition of the Church affirms a perpetual virginity of Mary; and the Reformers of the sixteenth century themselves confessed ‘Mariam semper virginem’ [Mary ever-Virgin]…The entire tradition of the Church has held to the perpetual virginity of Mary as a sign of her dedication and of the fullness of God’s gift of which she was the object. The Reformers themselves respected this belief…For Calvin and the other Reformers accept the traditional view that Mary had only one son, the Son of God, who had been to her the fullness of grace and joy…In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how UNANIMOUS they are in all that concerns Mary’s holiness and perpetual virginity.” (Thurian, pages 37-40, 89, 197)

Heinrich Bullinger, Cranmer’s brother-in-law, Zwingli’s successor said:

“What pre-eminence in the eyes of purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them…” (cited in Thurian).

French Reformed pastor Charles Drelincourt, who well represents the Reformed belief of the 17th century:

“We do not simply believe that God has favoured the holy and blessed Virgin more than all the Patriarchs and the Prophets, but also that He has exalted her above all Seraphim. The angels can only qualify as servants of the Son of God, the creatures and workmanship of his hands; but the holy Virgin is not only the servant and the creature but also the Mother of this great and living God.” (cited in Thurian)

In this marvelous book by Calvinist theologian Max Thurian (he later became a Catholic), which Catholic Scripture scholar Fr. Raymond Brown called at the time “not only the best Protestant evaluation of the Mariological question, but far better than many Catholic treatments” (see Brown, Gospel of John [Anchor Bible, 1969], page 107), Thurian states:

“…we can assert nothing other than this, for this is the most as well as the least that we can state to those who on the one hand would wish to speak of Mary as if she were sinful or on the other as separated from our condition as human creatures. We do not see how either the one or the other can be legitimately proved from the Gospel. Mary, full of grace, Daughter of Zion, the Mother of God Incarnate, the symbol of Mother Church is holy because in her the Gospel sees the living sign of a unique and pre-destined choice of the Lord, the response of faith from a perfectly human creature, but one who was also totally obedient.” (Mary, Mother of All Christians [Herder, 1963] by Max Thurian, page 25)

Max Thurian not only converted to Catholicism, but he was also later ordained a Catholic priest by the former Archbishop of Naples, Cardinal Ursi.

Max Thurian passed away on 15 August 1996 :
THE FEAST OF THE ASSUMPTION

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

I suppose this might be one possiblity but there really are no facts to back this up. Rather there was plenty of time for the apostles to think of her in her relationship to Christ and never drew the conclusions that the catholic church does about her.

How can you prove this, since not everything they said, did, and believed is written in Scripture?

 

[guanophore]

Not so. It is by far best to think of these children as “real” children born by natural means of a relationship with Joseph.

You have decided that it is best for you to live in “protest” against the Authority that Jesus appointed to the Church He established. You have decided, in your rebellious state as a subject of the Roman Pontiff, that you reject the Sacred Tradition that was handed down by the Apostles. As a consequence, you have fallen into error in a number of areas, one of these being that it is "best’ to think of Mary as someone other than ever virgin. This is a “New Gospel”, that only emerged in that last 300 years. Even the original Protestants never believed such a thing!

Now that you are disconnected so far from your own family history, you are wandering further and further from the faith that produced the NT.