Demonstrating Immaculate Conception Straight from the Bible

[sirach2v4]

There are two books by Fr. Luigi Gambero (see Amazon.com, for example or Ignatius Press) that list the ancient writings of theologians on Marion doctrine throughout the centuries.

The subject of IC has been discussed for centuries, with the likes of Augustine and Aquinas lined up against it.

Along comes Duns Scotus in favor of it. Then, a mere five centuries later it is declared as dogma.

The controversy for centuries highlights that the issue cannot be solved in 39 posts in this thread, for example.

I’ve read the excerpts from so many of these theologians that I don’t remember which one said this. But, he said that IC means that Mary was born without original sin and without the inclination to commit a sin (mortal or venial) in her life. Whew. You have to admit that’s an amazing assertion.

If you admit this about Mary, is she really the greatest creation of God? Does not a repentant sinner have more glory than her, because the sinner has overcome the inclination towards sin, whereas Mary got that as a free gift?

It was easy for Mary not to sin, not like us who struggle and struggle, no?

Anyway, does Jesus’ parable of the laborers apply here? In other words, don’t the laborers who ‘labored’ (struggling against sin) all day get paid as much as the one who labored the least (who didn’t have to stuggle against sin)?

We’re supposed to imitate Mary, who had no inclination to sin? How do we do that? How long can you hold your breath? Scripture says that Jesus was like us with respect to temptation, but not with sin. But Mary?

Mary becomes other-worldly when the theologians say she is the perfect model of humility. How could she be humble, when she was so different from other people? Don’t you get tempted with pride when you’re the most humble person? It seems so easy to fail, for that crown to slip off your head, with respect to humility.

All I’m saying is that theology is so confusing to me. Those Gambero books answered a lot of questions, but only gave me new questions, like I state here.

 

[sirach2v4]

I checked the Gambero book again, the entry for John Duns Scotus. It says there is no scriptural evidence for the immaculate conception nor is there a uniform precedent in the early church fathers.

Scotus simply seems to assume the Immaculate Conception, then seems to come up with a way in which it happens. And, that is, that Christ has two different ways of redeeming mankind. In the case of most people, it is a restorative redemption.

In the case of Mary, Christ preserved her free of sin in a preventative way, with preventative redemption, so that she was not touched with the stain of sin.

That would have the effect I mentioned previously, that she would have no inclination to mortal or venial sin. Without saying as much, Scotus/Gambero seem to be saying that it is as if Mary’s free will was taken away so that she could not sin.

 

[Cachonga]

sirach2v4:

There are two books by Fr. Luigi Gambero (see Amazon.com, for example or Ignatius Press) that list the ancient writings of theologians on Marion doctrine throughout the centuries.

Did Duns Scotus come to his conclusions based on Scripture, or was it more philosophy and human logic? Considering he missed being an eye witness by over 1,000 years, I’m a bit skeptical of his conclusions. If he proved anything from Scripture, I’d like to know what it was. If he didn’t cite Scripture for his evidence, then this is not relevant to the topic.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

sirach2v4:

she would have no inclination to mortal or venial sin. Without saying as much, Scotus/Gambero seem to be saying that it is as if Mary’s free will was taken away so that she could not sin.

No one has ever said that, nor implied it. Did Eve have a free will? She was created without original sin. She was tempted and fell. Same for Adam. Created without sin. Yet he sinned. It wasn’t even a difficult trial, just simple obedience. But even that was too much.

Mary had a free will the same as you or me. She also didn’t live in Paradise, but lived in a fallen world filled with sin on all sides. She was beset with trial, suffering and other ailments common to mankind. Still she did not sin. Why? Because she had a free will.

 

[sirach2v4]

see the catholic encyclopedia entry on this subject, on this website

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Immaculate_Conception

 

[sirach2v4]

No one has ever said that, nor implied it. .

with respect with what this quotation refers to, in fact, somebody DID say it, that as a result of her immaculate conception, Mary had no inclination to venial or mortal sin.

I am currently reading Mary in the Middle Ages by Fr. Luigi Gambero. This statement abour her having no inclination to sin is in there, but I can’t find it right now. I thought I recorded it in my notes, but I guess I didn’t. Somebody said it, I don’t remember which theologian it was.

On the basis of that statement, I asserted that she virtually had no free will, because she was preserved from actual sin (John Duns Scotus, p 252, in Gambero, ibid).

aside: if Mary was given such privilege, I wonder why the theologians said she was so much greater than any other creature. According to Christ’s parable of the laborers, the one who works the least (resisting sin) is paid as much as those who labor the longest (live a life of temptation and repentance for sin). Mary didn’t have to do anything, and she was preserved from sin. The rest of us have to struggle, mightily, to come anywhere close to that. Why does Mary get more “credit” for doing less than the rest of us?]

 

[AmbroseSJ]

with respect with what this quotation refers to, in fact, somebody DID say it, that as a result of her immaculate conception, Mary had no inclination to venial or mortal sin.

I am currently reading Mary in the Middle Ages by Fr. Luigi Gambero. This statement abour her having no inclination to sin is in there, but I can’t find it right now. I thought I recorded it in my notes, but I guess I didn’t. Somebody said it, I don’t remember which theologian it was.

On the basis of that statement, I asserted that she virtually had no free will, because she was preserved from actual sin (John Duns Scotus, p 252, in Gambero, ibid).

aside: if Mary was given such privilege, I wonder why the theologians said she was so much greater than any other creature. According to Christ’s parable of the laborers, the one who works the least (resisting sin) is paid as much as those who labor the longest (live a life of temptation and repentance for sin). Mary didn’t have to do anything, and she was preserved from sin. The rest of us have to struggle, mightily, to come anywhere close to that. Why does Mary get more “credit” for doing less than the rest of us?]

First of all, you are referring to concupiscence, the inclination to sin. That has nothing to do with free will as I stated in my previous post.

Now you go further and say it was therefore easier for the BVM to avoid sin, unlike us who have to struggle. But that doesn’t answer the question about Adam and Eve. Why did they sin? They had no concupiscence or original sin; they were created as immaculate as the Virgin Mary. And yet Mary was not in the Garden of Eden, she was in a fallen world with sin on every side of her. She also suffered the same ills we fallen ones do. Lastly, since you and me are not Immaculately conceived and free from sin, how do we DARE say what it was like for the BVM to struggle along in this world, while always remaining pure and immaculate? None of us can make such a preposterous judgement! What we CAN be sure of is this: Her life was such a model of Christian (even Mosaic) Virtue and obedience, that she MERITED more grace from God than any other creature, including the highest choirs of Angels. She is the QUEEN of HEAVEN AND EARTH. This sort of honor is not due to the capricious favoritism of the ALL JUST God. It has been MERITED by the BVM because of her unequaled cooperation with God’s grace.’

Where we struggle to avoid sin, the Virgin Mary struggled with every fiber of her being to serve God perfectly. Her struggle was a positive exercise of virtue, just as much as our struggle to avoid sin is a positive exercise of virtue.

 

[sirach2v4]

the Virgin Mary struggled with every fiber of her being

such words are poetic, perhaps loving, superlatives, based on assumptions. That is characteristic of Catholic theologian rationalization. It seems to merit a criticism of
intellectual bullying. It certainly cannot be proven.

I wonder why they put such exaggerated emphasis on Mary, that scripture does not, explicitly, or even implicitly?

The encyclopedia entry for “immaculate conception” on this website, elsewhere, says that there is no scriptural basis for the IC.

So many want to give “glory” to Mary. What for? How can what we do, surpass the reward of God for her? How can we add an ounce of glory to Mary that God has not already done? If I gave my whole life for Mary or “to” Mary, what would it add to what God can give her? If Mary is so great, that is the proof that we can’t add anything to her honor.

like your subscript says, I have an opinion of my own.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

such words are poetic, perhaps loving, superlatives, based on assumptions. That is characteristic of Catholic theologian rationalization. It seems to merit a criticism of
intellectual bullying. It certainly cannot be proven.

I wonder why they put such exaggerated emphasis on Mary, that scripture does not, explicitly, or even implicitly?

The encyclopedia entry for “immaculate conception” on this website, elsewhere, says that there is no scriptural basis for the IC. like your subscript says, I have an opinion of my own.

Very well. You may be right, in your way. I do base my opinions on certain assumptions, just as you do. OTOH, you have no way of disproving my comments. So we are at an impasse. You see that the Church DOES place an enormous stress on the importance of Mary. Yet, as you have noticed, it does not seem to be echoed by Scripture, at least not explicitly.

So many want to give “glory” to Mary. What for? How can what we do, surpass the reward of God for her? How can we add an ounce of glory to Mary that God has not already done? If I gave my whole life for Mary or “to” Mary, what would it add to what God can give her? If Mary is so great, that is the proof that we can’t add anything to her honor.

Here, you may be misunderstanding Catholic devotion to Mary. It is not about giving her glory. As you said, what can we do in that way anyhow? But what Catholic devotion IS about, is seeing Mary as our model of virtue, our patroness/mother, our intercessor before the Throne of Heaven. IOW, it is what she can do for US!

Let us leave for now the usual complaints about Jesus being our Savior and ONLY intercessor before God. Do we need intercession of others, or Saints? Yes we do.
To understand Catholicism you must understand the place of the Virgin Mary in Catholicism.

In our Creed, we say we believe in the “Communion (intercession) of the Saints.” It is fundamental to our Faith.

The Church wants us to understand HOW important an intercessor Mary is with Doctrines like the Immaculate Conception.

 

[sirach2v4]

Very well. You may be right, in your way. I do base my opinions on certain assumptions, just as you do. OTOH, you have no way of disproving my comments. So we are at an impasse. You see that the Church DOES place an enormous stress on the importance of Mary. Yet, as you have noticed, it does not seem to be echoed by Scripture, at least not explicitly.

Here, you may be misunderstanding Catholic devotion to Mary. It is not about giving her glory. As you said, what can we do in that way anyhow? But what Catholic devotion IS about, is seeing Mary as our model of virtue, our patroness/mother, our intercessor before the Throne of Heaven. IOW, it is what she can do for US!

Let us leave for now the usual complaints about Jesus being our Savior and ONLY intercessor before God. Do we need intercession of others, or Saints? Yes we do.
To understand Catholicism you must understand the place of the Virgin Mary in Catholicism.

In our Creed, we say we believe in the “Communion (intercession) of the Saints.” It is fundamental to our Faith.

The Church wants us to understand HOW important an intercessor Mary is with Doctrines like the Immaculate Conception.

Well, Gambero’s book offers evidence against a lot of what you are saying.

back to the issue of free will:

I’m still reading the end of the book, and came across another theologian, Bernardine of Sienna. Fr. Gambero attributes to Bernardine:

“at the moment of the Incarnation, a special intervention of God took place in her, which confirmed her in the practice of good, freed her from the fomes [inclination to sin] of concupiscence, and took away the possibility of sinning.” p.294

If the possibility of sinning was gone, then there was no free will. /QED.

Mary was obviously given a greater grace than Adam and Eve, and the rest of us, for sure. You’re going to have to take my word, this assertion is made frequently in the book. She was greater than any other creature (which would include A&E). (One remarkable statement much earlier in the book was to the effect that Mary received graces that were greater than the rest of us can get even in all the sacraments. There are some high-flying statements about Mary in this book. Technically, you may make the argument that these are not all “church” teachings, but you’d have to prove that, since their writings were not condemned ala Galileo.)

Gambero said this theologian made many statements of excess about Mary, not a one of which he quotes. This apparently is not one of Bernadine’s excessive statements.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

sirach2v4:

Gambero said this theologian [St. Bernardine of Sienna] made many statements of excess about Mary, not a one of which he quotes. [except for this:] “at the moment of the Incarnation, a special intervention of God took place in her, which confirmed her in the practice of good, freed her from the fomes [inclination to sin] of concupiscence, and took away the possibility of sinning.”

Your author is saying that St. Bernardine’s statement is an example of EXCESS. St. Bernardine left behind treatises, sermons and many other writings that if carefully combed over by another modern theologian uncovers some statements of excess. I am not familiar with your book, **or the context **of this quote taken from St. Bernardine, but it is obvious at least that Gambero thinks this statement is excessive. Catholics today would agree.

So what Gambero’s book is doing is CONFIRMING what I have been saying.

Elsewhere you said:

All I’m saying is that theology is so confusing to me. Those Gambero books answered a lot of questions, but only gave me new questions, like I state here.

 

[Cachonga]

sirach2v4:

back to the issue of free will:

Excuse me, but the topic of THIS thread is “Demonstrating Immaculate Conception Straight from the Bible”. I’m not familiar with the Scriptural book of Gambero, and I’m not aware that Bernardine of Sienna wrote any God-breathed Scripture, so why is this even being discussed on this thread? You may want to start a new thread for this topic.

 

[SlowerAndSlower]

Cachonga,
Thank you for your response. I am only trying to explain this reasoning from Luke 1:46
-1:49 - I am not trying to convince you of the Immaculate Conception, for you are free to
follow your conscience and to believe or not believe as you will (but of course you
must face the consequences).​

Below I will try to recapitulate my earlier posts as well as expand & improve
on some aspects.I apologize that the reasoning is not as deft as that existential proof
given by the Virgin herself when she appeared at Lourdes and declared
“I am the Immaculate Conception.”

       A Biblical Demonstration from Mary's Magnificat
       of the Plausibility of the Immaculate Conception

Dedicated to the 900 million kids killed over the last 20 years.

============Short Version========(to get some of the main points quickly)
In Luke 1:47 Mary says “and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” This is the
only time in the NRSV New Testament that the phrase “my Savior” occurs;
the 24 other instances of the word “Savior” are immediately preceded by
the articles “our” or “the” or “a”. Written in the inerrant Bible,
and in the context of the New Testament, which focuses on the salvation of Israel
and then the salvation of the gentiles through Christ’s atoning sacrifice
on the cross, the unique words “my Savior” expressed in the present tense mean
that Mary is in a “state of grace” (or “saved”). To be in a state of grace,
it is necessary to be without serious actual sin and without original sin.
However, at the time of Luke 1:47, Christ had not died on the cross (he had not
even been born yet), and so at the time there was no atonement for sins, and hence
no forgiveness of actual sins and no forgiveness of original sin was possible.
That Mary was in a state of grace during this period when there was no forgiveness of
original sin or serious actual sin logically requires that Mary had from her
earliest existence always been in a state of grace. If she was in a state of grace
from the moment of her earliest existence, then she must have been made this way.
Hence, she was made without original sin. Thus, Luke 1:47 logically
demonstrates the plausibility of the Catholic Dogma of the Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin Mary - “in the first instance of her conception, by a
singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ,
the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

========To follow later - a more detailed development================

 

[Cachonga]

SlowerAndSlower:

I am not trying to convince you of the Immaculate Conception, for you are free to follow your conscience and to believe or not believe as you will (but of course you must face the consequences).

Odd that this was a true statement for ALL Catholics prior to the dogmatic declaration in the 1800’s, but since that time you cannot remain in right standing with the church if you do not accept the dogma (of course, this is a bit off topic, and is little more than a commentary on my part).

A Biblical Demonstration from Mary’s Magnificat
of the Plausibility of the Immaculate Conception

(and following…)

I have already asked about your use of an English translation as a basis for your assertion (I don’t believe it’s valid because the Scriptures were not written in English, English wasn’t even a language anywhere on the planet at the time the Scriptures were being written, and things can be lost and/or misunderstood in translation). I am not saying that translations are unreliable, but to use a particular translation to try and establish a doctrine of any kind seems a bit risky. This is one reason I’m trying to learn Greek (not just looking up a word in a lexicon, which is not a dictionary, but actually learning the language).

Even in the original Greek, there is no reference as to when Mary was saved by God. Could have been from conception, could have been right before the angel came in with the original greeting. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture to imply that Mary was free from all stain of sin, including original sin. This idea is based more on philosophy than theology, and Paul warned us about philosophies (see Col 2:8). Furthermore, Jesus showed us how to determine if a tradition is from God or man by comparing it with Scripture (see Mark 7).

So far you have not been able to demonstrate the immaculate conception straight from the Bible. The best you’ve been able to do is present a “plausibility”, but that’s a weak thing to build a dogma on (IMHO).

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Odd that this was a true statement for ALL Catholics prior to the dogmatic declaration in the 1800’s, but since that time you cannot remain in right standing with the church if you do not accept the dogma (of course, this is a bit off topic, and is little more than a commentary on my part).

I have already asked about your use of an English translation as a basis for your assertion (I don’t believe it’s valid because the Scriptures were not written in English, English wasn’t even a language anywhere on the planet at the time the Scriptures were being written, and things can be lost and/or misunderstood in translation). I am not saying that translations are unreliable, but to use a particular translation to try and establish a doctrine of any kind seems a bit risky. This is one reason I’m trying to learn Greek (not just looking up a word in a lexicon, which is not a dictionary, but actually learning the language).

Even in the original Greek, there is no reference as to when Mary was saved by God. Could have been from conception, could have been right before the angel came in with the original greeting. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture to imply that Mary was free from all stain of sin, including original sin. This idea is based more on philosophy than theology, and Paul warned us about philosophies (see Col 2:8). Furthermore, Jesus showed us how to determine if a tradition is from God or man by comparing it with Scripture (see Mark 7).

So far you have not been able to demonstrate the immaculate conception straight from the Bible. The best you’ve been able to do is present a “plausibility”, but that’s a weak thing to build a dogma on (IMHO).

Paul warns us against philosophy that ‘makes prey of you’. He is speaking of the philosophy that is used against God, ‘empty deceit’ instead of the right use of reason. Paul in Romans points out that God’s existence is evident by His creation, and thus God is attainable to some degree through reason. Right use of reason cannot be condemned, as it is a gift from God and seeks after truth. Paul even uses quotes from Greek writers in Scripture to prove his point, and used similar methods of debate as Socrates.

reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/09/paul-the-new-socrates-in-athens-paul-as-philosopher-part-iii/

Philosophy can certainly help us understand theology, to seek the law written on our hearts. They compliment one another perfectly when used correctly. And there is nothing wrong with that. Though this is off topic, I feel it is important when discussing Catholic theology, because since the early Church fathers (before Nicea), philosophy was used heavily in conjunction with theology (Justin Martyr, for instance), and should be understood as the right use of reason, and not as the sophist foolishness preached by atheists.

 

[Cachonga]

PeaceInChrist:

Paul warns us against philosophy that ‘makes prey of you’. He is speaking of the philosophy that is used against God, ‘empty deceit’ instead of the right use of reason. Paul in Romans points out that God’s existence is evident by His creation, and thus God is attainable to some degree through reason. Right use of reason cannot be condemned, as it is a gift from God and seeks after truth. Paul even uses quotes from Greek writers in Scripture to prove his point, and used similar methods of debate as Socrates.

Interesting topic, but not relevant to this thread. My point was that the dogma of the immaculate conception depends more on philosophy than Scripture. Since the topic here is “Demonstrating Immaculate Conception Straight from the Bible”, then point to the Scriptures that prove the assertion. Of course, the best anyone has done is point out the “possibility” that it “could have” happened (hardly the kind of Biblical demonstration that could convince anyone that doesn’t just bow to the authority of an allegedly “infallible” teaching magisterium)…

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Cachonga:

So far you have not been able to demonstrate the immaculate conception straight from the Bible. The best you’ve been able to do is present a “plausibility”, but that’s a weak thing to build a dogma on (IMHO).

The doctrine itself is built on Tradition and biblical allusions and implications; but primarily Tradition.

It is crucial to recognize that the Church is not a man-made religion which proves its authenticity from the Bible as the Protestants must. It is a divine religion that is the Oracle of Revelation. The Church has spoken guided by the Holy Spirit, just as in Sacred Scripture.

Therefore, if a Protestant religion tried to define the Immaculate Conception, they would HAVE TO PROVE their case from Scripture, as there is no other Authority for them.

 

[Cachonga]

AmbroseSJ:

The doctrine itself is built on Tradition and biblical allusions and implications; but primarily Tradition.

Which again proves that you cannot “demonstrate the immaculate conception straight from the Bible”, right?

It is crucial to recognize that the Church is not a man-made religion which proves its authenticity from the Bible as the Protestants must. It is a divine religion that is the Oracle of Revelation. The Church has spoken guided by the Holy Spirit, just as in Sacred Scripture.

Since this isn’t the topic, I won’t comment on it

Therefore, if a Protestant religion tried to define the Immaculate Conception, they would HAVE TO PROVE their case from Scripture, as there is no other Authority for them.

Considering the op wanted to demonstrate this straight from the Bible, what is the relevance of this?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Which again proves that you cannot “demonstrate the immaculate conception straight from the Bible”, right?

It depends on your viewpoint. If you are a Catholic it can be as the OP has done. If you are a Protestant, you will require explicit teachings out of Scripture. The force of the demonstration in the OP depend primarily on your first principles or view. To a Protestant, who comes to the Bible already denying the IC, the demonstrations offered are inconclusive. Perhaps even to someone who is open minded, yet comes to the Bible with his own private judgement, the demonstration can still be inconclusive.

Catholics understand the need for a Divine interpreter -meaning the Church. It is therefore easily demonstrated from the Bible as the OP has done.

That is why I mentioned the Protestant/Catholic contexts. It is central to the point.

 

[Cachonga]

AmbroseSJ:

It depends on your viewpoint. If you are a Catholic it can be as the OP has done. If you are a Protestant, you will require explicit teachings out of Scripture. The force of the demonstration in the OP depend primarily on your first principles or view. To a Protestant, who comes to the Bible already denying the IC, the demonstrations offered are inconclusive. Perhaps even to someone who is open minded, yet comes to the Bible with his own private judgement, the demonstration can still be inconclusive.

You’re missing the point here, and that is that the dogma can be demonstrated “STRAIGHT FROM THE BIBLE”! Even Catholic scholars admit this cannot be done, yet you seem to think that the Op is smarter than those who have examined this before. You yourself admitted that this dogma is based primarily in tradition, and that the Scriptures were little more than “biblical allusions and implications”. How could such a doctrine be believed without importing these “traditions”?

Catholics understand the need for a Divine interpreter -meaning the Church. It is therefore easily demonstrated from the Bible as the OP has done.

Basically, you believe it because the church says so (even though the church has admitted that it cannot be demonstrated from Scripture alone. You seem to think the Op is more infallible than the church in this matter).

That is why I mentioned the Protestant/Catholic contexts. It is central to the point.

The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that the Catholic “viewpoint” includes the “traditions” necessary to see the dogma. This does NOT demonstrate the dogma straight from the Bible.