Immaculate Conception and assumption

[VociMike]

“Who” is the church that you are referring to here?

The teaching authority of the Church is the bishops together in union with the pope. The bishops together in union with the pope have never taught that Mary sinned.

 

[YADA]

Have you checked any catholic commentaries on this? Do they agree with you on this?

Yes I have read many catholic commentaries and protestant ones too, have you?

It depends what you mean by “honor”. The honor that the catholic church gives Mary goes far beyond honor.

NO THE HONOR THE Curch gives to Mary does not go beyond honor, it does in your opinion but does not in truth, we honor Mary and observe her response to God, she tells us to “Do whatever He [Jesus] tells us” [very good advice] and “Let it be done unto me according to your Word” [humble acceptance of God’s call - nothing wrong here] and "My soul magnifies the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my Savior’ [well - we should rejoice in our Savior - one and the same savior - Jesus]

If you mean that she never sinned, then you are going to have show in Scripture where God did this. Can you show me where?

You have been shown and the passages explained, you have determined your personal interpretation of scripture - differently- how sad fo you. You neglect nd ignore the testimony of the original reformers whose quotes in this topic have ben provide…So the Scriptures give testimony and you dismiss. The testimony of the Church’s constant teaching for 2000 years, the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Reformers [Luther, Calvin and Zwingli] are all ignored…You are your own Pope, Magisteriu and Church rolled into one…Sorry , not buying here…

That Mary remained a virgin goes against the clear scripture that she indeed did have other children after Jesus. It is a perversion of the scriptures to say otherwise.

Sorry the scriptures are not clear on this point…aramaic has no word for cousin, uncle/aunt, brother/sister in law, step brother/sister - brother [or sister] can be used to refer to any relative [blood, by marriage, adoption, or even a person from the same clan, tribeor village. So the ‘brothers and sisters’ could be children of Josheoh from a previous marriage, children of other family members, uncles and aunts, or friends from Nazareth [Galilee] What is perverse os for you to assert that scripture gives testimony to ‘facts not in eveidence’

No doubt i have my speculations. Research the scriptural and historical support for these marian doctrines and you will find that its just not there. The assumption is a case in point. No mention in scripture and unknown for centuries. In fact the catholic church admits it doesn’t know what happened to her. This is from catholic sources.

I have researched the scriptural and historical support, perhaps you should do the same but with and open mind. Again, you dismiss the scriptural passages that point to the assumption…you take an imperfect and incomplete record of writings and draw forgone conclusions …

Why do you use an incomplete “Bible” when the earliest extant collections contain more books than the ‘version’ you use…what is the historical basis for that decision…?

 

[Good_Fella]

No one doubts immaculate conception or Christ’s nature. The argument is about Mary’s conception and nature. As a protestant, I do not see it central to who Christ was. He was clearly conceived sinless without regard to Mary’s state as such. It need not go back one generation to Mary for Him to be conceived as such. In a same way, Did Mary’s mother need to be without original sin for Mary’s birth to be such. No, this very fact negates the necessity of such for Mary to be immaculately conceived to give birth to Christ. I understand that she is called the “Mother of God” but this honor exists outside of her state (as full of grace) but in her actions of conceiving Christ in my mind.

As far as the assumption/dormition of Mary into heaven; Let us not forget Enoch and Elijah were taken up. They had less honor than Mary. I would not doubt that Mary, the most blessed among women could be given such honor. I don’t denegrate Mary as a Protestant but I don’t venerate her either. It could be true. It is speculative in my mind, but it does not change much.

Enoch and Elijah do not exist in heaven “body and soul” with Jesus, for they were conceived in a state of original sin. Of all the saints in heaven, only Mary shares this privilege with her divine Son. Enoch and Elijah exist in a place resembling the original Paradise before the Fall. All of us who sleep in Christ will join Mary on Resurrection Day.

Mary’s mother did not need to be without original sin to conceive Mary. For Mary is not eternally begotten of the Father. Jesus is the Son of God. The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church teaches non-infallibly that Mary was preserved free from original sin so that our Lord - “like us in all things but sin” - would not inherit the Sin of Adam and Eve. For the Word was to become flesh - fully human while divine. Protestants contend that God could have circumvented Mary’s state of original sin at the Incarnation if he willed. But they forget that Jesus chose not to circumvent his baptism in the river Jordan - to “fulfill all righteousness”. If Mary had inherited original sin, then so would have Jesus. He would have been “like us in all things” including sin.

A theologian I know once told me that God does not act foolishly in his omnipotence. So it may seem to us that God can do this or that. But God only does what is wise beyond our understanding. In his wisdom, God formed a plan which does not require mere power to accomplish his will, but which is subtle and wise, and which makes all things work together for his good purpose. It would be unlike God to ignore the mother of the Messiah, and to merely use sheer power without wisdom in order to preserve Jesus from original sin. So while God could have done so without preserving Mary free from original sin, it was not fitting and wise for the Most High to do so.

The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stonger than men.
{1Cor 1:25}

A fool has no delight in understanding, but in expressing his own heart. {Proverbs 18:2}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Zooey]

It is not mere speculation that by John in scripture [Revelation 11 and 12] Mary represented as the Ark of the New Covenant. It is not speculation that the Church beleives this. Mary is the new Eve to Jesus’s new Adam.

It is not speculation that the church honors Mary and has throughout the ages [past and to come] in accord with Luke’s Gospel “All generations shall call me Blessed”

It is not speculation to assert that Mary was saved by a singular act of Jesus, in the merits of the Cross. Mary and Elizabeth both proclaim Gods goodness and saving graces…we hear of this in Luke…

Also from Luke [and in fullfillment of the Hebrew prophetic witneess] Mary was a Virgin and remained so…all of early Christian belief testifies to this, even the original “protestants - Luther, Calvin and Zwingli” The alternative is rather new; a form of Modernism. In fact, the hostile tone that now accompanies this claim could almost be considered “New Age”.

It is you who fail to recoognize your own 'speculation"

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[Zooey]

John Saward (Protestant) On the Assumption of Mary

"The New Testament regards the resurrection of Our Lord not as an isolated event with only isolated repercussions for mankind, but as the beginning of the universal resurrection of the dead [see 1 Cor 15:13,16] . . . Resurrection, we must say again, is communal . . .

"The heart of the doctrine of the resurrection is this sense of the communal, inclusive body of glory. Now I believe that it is precisely this sense of resurrection-relatedness' that is the foundation of the doctrine of the Assumption of Our Blessed Lady . . . while the victory over death that has taken place in Mary may not be general, there is an important sense in which it can be said to be thoroughly normal’, a direct upshot and fruit of Christ’s own victory over sin and death . . .

"It is precisely the typological role of the Assumption, its prefiguring of the general resurrection, which we find most consistently stressed in our earliest witnesses . . . The resurrection of Jesus is not simply typological but effective; it has a causal and not simply iconic relation to the general resurrection. It does not simply prefigure the reassembly of all men but actually sets it in motion. Now Our Lady receives resurrection as we all shall through the power of God; the difference in her case being only its anticipation, its role as sign and type . . .

"Pope Pius saw that the Assumption struck a prophetic blow against the institutionalized individualism of the modern world, its competitive and alienated spirit, demonstrated in a global way in the Second World War, which had ended only five years before, and daily seen in men’s lives. A dogma that is based on an indestructible relationship of Mother and Son, and of the Son with humanity, has much to offer the world . . .

"What is the source of the Assumption? I believe that the ultimate source of the belief is Mary herself; that we know that she is alive and glorified because of our fellowship with her in Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit. That, it seems to me, is the axiom upon which the Assumption as a dogma rests. It cannot be over-emphasized that it does not depend for its truth on the historical reliability of the various apocryphal accounts of the death, burial and assumption of Our Lady. This is the fear of many non-Catholics, and we can allay it at once; the Fathers themselves are emphatic on this point as well and make guarded and sparing use of the apocryphal material . . .

“What sense can we make of the late appearance of the doctrine? . . . There can be no satisfactory answer to all this except in terms of the Church’s Tradition . . . Tradition is an organically growing language, indeed a participation through the Spirit in the language of God himself . . . The Church can only claim to speak and know the truth because of her believing, bodily inherence in Christ, the Word incarnate, and because of the Spirit’s indwelling of her. We know the Assumption to be true not on the basis of interior speculation but through the communal experience and wisdom of the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church . . . The `source’ of the doctrine of the Assumption is ultimately the interpretation within the Church, precipitated by, but not simply a function of, the growing Christological sense of Mary’s role, that Our Lady is risen with Christ, reigns with Him in heaven, and intercedes for us, and that her relics are there, not here. As I hope is now clear, that vision of heavenly reality was fired by the doctrines of Christ, salvation and the Church. It is a vision that Catholic Christendom must never lose or compromise and that the Anglican Church must at all costs regain.” (30)

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[MariaG]

Are you aware that God did not dwell in the ark itself but remained over the Ark, in between the two Cherubim?

And what did the Ark carry?

Various items like Aron rod, jar of manna and the tablets. There could have been other things to. The important thing is that God did not dwell inside it.

The Ark Carried the word of God.

Mary carried the Word.

In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Jonn 1:1

Just to clarify, I am not saying that the word carried in the Ark of the Old Covenant was God. But we see in the Old Testament a foreshadowing of the New.

God Bless,
Maria

What is being presented is not evidence but more speculations. Evidence that you need to show are documents that teach that they did believe such things. Again, just because the church did not reject something does not mean they believed it. Think of the ramifications of what you are saying here. If i applied this kind of reasoning to other things we would be believing in all kinds of nonsense.

Sometimes little errors creep in unnoticed. We can see this even in some of the early fathers for example. They all would not have believed what the catholic church teaches today. Take Mary being without sin. Some fathers believed she did sin. That would make them false in this regards yet we don’t see them being rebuked do we?

What this demonstrates is how early errors were creeping into the church at an early date. Much of what is here is unbiblical and speculations. Thanks for helping to make my case.

You constantly ask for proof, but when provided it, you say that it shows the errors crept in early. When provided the scripture, you try to show our interpretation is in error, and when you hit a point you cannot answer, like the fact that the Ark carried the Word of God and Jesus is the Word, you…?

Scripture is in abundance. So is early evidence from the Church that this is what the Church believes. You firmly believe, as do I, that scripture warns us that there will be those who come along teaching falsely, yet when shown that the Early Church reflects Catholic teaching, you prefer to think that the errors came ealier rather than later.

Who is more likely to be in error? Those whom the apostles taught or those who were born 1500 years later? Actually, those who do not believe that Mary was saved in anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice came much later. All the reformers believe in Mary’s sinlessness.

You disagree with not only the Catholic church, but those who originally split from Her.

Think about it. Your interpretation was not even part of the reformers. Whose interpretation “came along”? Yours, or mine?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[guanophore]

What is being presented is not evidence but more speculations. Evidence that you need to show are documents that teach that they did believe such things. Again, just because the church did not reject something does not mean they believed it. Think of the ramifications of what you are saying here. If i applied this kind of reasoning to other things we would be believing in all kinds of nonsense.

I think you have demonstrated this very well!

However, Daniel Marsh has even better non-sense, so if anyone is lacking, do a search and read the posts! Absurdities. Sorry, I digress.

You are in error, here, ja4. You are saying that persons of Apostolic faiths need “documents that teach”. This is wrong because documents don’t teach. People teach. Jesus entrusted the message of the Kingdom to the Apostles, not to documents.

The early church was very vigorous in rejecting heresy, as you will find when you study the early church fathers. Ideas that were not refuted continued because they were commonly believed and accepted, such as the special place of Mary in the salvation story, and the intercession of the saints.

Can we then say it is not an apostolic teaching?

We can say that the evidence that exists does not meet your narrow criteria as authoritative. We can also say that the evidence that DOES exist is sufficient for the Church.

 

[guanophore]

“It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. . …” John of Damascene, Dormition of Mary (PG 96,741), (ante A.D. 749).

And I thought catholics believed God did that for her.

We do, but we also believe that human beings have free will, and that we must cooperate with God’s grace in order to fufill God’s will. Luke 13:24 "Strive to enter by the narrow door; "

It may not be that keeping herself a virgin was a “strive” for her, as obedience to God is for some of us, but she had to make the choices.

 

[guanophore]

No one doubts immaculate conception or Christ’s nature. The argument is about Mary’s conception and nature.

Welcome to CAF Newchasm. Clearly you need to do some study before you jump into the fray. the immaculate conception is not about Jesus, but about Mary. It refers to Mary being conceived without sin.

As a protestant, I do not see it central to who Christ was. He was clearly conceived sinless without regard to Mary’s state as such. It need not go back one generation to Mary for Him to be conceived as such. In a same way, Did Mary’s mother need to be without original sin for Mary’s birth to be such.

What will help this to make sense for you is to study some of the heresies of the early church such as the Arian and Nestorian. The doctrines of Mary emerged out of the doctrines of Christ. You can’t make sense out of one without the other.

No, this very fact negates the necessity of such for Mary to be immaculately conceived to give birth to Christ. I understand that she is called the “Mother of God” but this honor exists outside of her state (as full of grace) but in her actions of conceiving Christ in my mind.

They cannot be separated. She was chosen as the Mother of God BECAUSE she was full of grace. She was also created full of grace so that she could become the Mother of God.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, they are the words of Jesus…are you following His command? Do you hate your mother and father? If you don’t, then by your reasoning - how can you be a follower of Jesus?

I think she really does have some resentments toward her parents. She has written about how they raised her, and taught her fables and falseness (because they are Catholic). She does allow as how they didn’t know any better, but as far as she is concerned, they live in darkness to this day. Maybe she has a “let the dead bury their own dead” feeling about them? She did say witnessing to them did not help, because they did not have the spiritual sense to understand it.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

They cannot be separated. She was chosen as the Mother of God BECAUSE she was full of grace. She was also created full of grace so that she could become the Mother of God.

I make these claims 2nd hand, because I am not fluent in Greek … however my best friend is (and I thank God for him, even if he did threaten to give me a Greek primer as a Birthday present ).

The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is *plaras karitos *and is not found in the original Greek of Luke 1:28

The original Greek word used was *kexaritomena * and so the more proper translation of the passage is “highly favored one”.

Of course, Mary was highly favored. To be asked to bring Christ into the world…you have to be! But if the translation above is correct, it makes a couple of the Church’s claims about Mary a bit less clear.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

What will help this to make sense for you is to study some of the heresies of the early church such as the Arian and Nestorian. The doctrines of Mary emerged out of the doctrines of Christ. You can’t make sense out of one without the other.

Yes, excellent point, guanophore! The Dogma of the “Mother Of God” came directly out of the Nestorian heresy, and that point isn’t made enough. Christ had to be defined as 100% human, and 100% God.

However, let me challenge your thinking (and you, mine) on the Immaculate Conception. If Almighty God can preserve Mary, Mother of God, from the stain of original sin . . . then why could he not “cut out the middle-man”, so to speak, and preserve Christ from it?

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Protestants contend that God could have circumvented Mary’s state of original sin at the Incarnation if he willed. But they forget that Jesus chose not to circumvent his baptism in the river Jordan - to “fulfill all righteousness”.

But isn’t the point of the Sacrament of Baptism, washing away Original Sin, and being born to a new life? Clearly, Christ did not need to have the stain of Original Sin removed. So I’m not following your logic.

I’d be greatful if you’d explain further …

 

[dessert]

I make these claims 2nd hand, because I am not fluent in Greek … however my best friend is (and I thank God for him, even if he did threaten to give me a Greek primer as a Birthday present ).

The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is *plaras karitos *and is not found in the original Greek of Luke 1:28

The original Greek word used was *kexaritomena * and so the more proper translation of the passage is “highly favored one”.

Of course, Mary was highly favored. To be asked to bring Christ into the world…you have to be! But if the translation above is correct, it makes a couple of the Church’s claims about Mary a bit less clear.

So she can’t be both?
D.

 

[Good_Fella]

But isn’t the point of the Sacrament of Baptism, washing away Original Sin, and being born to a new life? Clearly, Christ did not need to have the stain of Original Sin removed. So I’m not following your logic.

I’d be greatful if you’d explain further …

The point is God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, His ways are not our ways. John insisted that Jesus was in no need of baptism, but despite what John thought, our Lord proceeded just the same according to his own hidden wisdom. Protestants are like John telling God what he should or should not do for our Blessed Mother. God often acts contrary to our reasoning and expectations, because we cannot fathom the mind of God and his superior wisdom.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Randy_Carson]

You constantly ask for proof, but when provided it, you say that it shows the errors crept in early. When provided the scripture, you try to show our interpretation is in error, and when you hit a point you cannot answer, like the fact that the Ark carried the Word of God and Jesus is the Word, you…?

Scripture is in abundance. So is early evidence from the Church that this is what the Church believes. You firmly believe, as do I, that scripture warns us that there will be those who come along teaching falsely, yet when shown that the Early Church reflects Catholic teaching, you prefer to think that the errors came ealier rather than later.

Who is more likely to be in error? Those whom the apostles taught or those who were born 1500 years later? Actually, those who do not believe that Mary was saved in anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice came much later. All the reformers believe in Mary’s sinlessness.

You disagree with not only the Catholic church, but those who originally split from Her.

Think about it. Your interpretation was not even part of the reformers. Whose interpretation “came along”? Yours, or mine?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Well said! :clapping:

 

[Randy_Carson]

I make these claims 2nd hand, because I am not fluent in Greek … however my best friend is (and I thank God for him, even if he did threaten to give me a Greek primer as a Birthday present ).

The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is *plaras karitos *and is not found in the original Greek of Luke 1:28

The original Greek word used was *kexaritomena *and so the more proper translation of the passage is “highly favored one”.

Of course, Mary was highly favored. To be asked to bring Christ into the world…you have to be! But if the translation above is correct, it makes a couple of the Church’s claims about Mary a bit less clear.

The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo (Strong’s 5487), meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. This means that the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was not only as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but 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 to have been called “full of grace.”

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[justasking4]

Randy Carson;2818755]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MariaG
You constantly ask for proof, but when provided it, you say that it shows the errors crept in early.

That is true at times i show where it has. I have yet to see someone show me that i’m wrong at a particular point. Can you?

When provided the scripture, you try to show our interpretation is in error, and when you hit a point you cannot answer, like the fact that the Ark carried the Word of God and Jesus is the Word, you…?

I know this ark is used but i have shown that it runs counter to proper interpretation principles. Not only that, we know that the apostles never taught this either. Again, i have yet to see anyone on these forumns defend their interpretation. All i see is a statement, an assertion but no defense. Lets take the ark as Mary. We know that God did not dwell in the ark. We also know in the ark were the 10 commandments, jar of manna and Aarons rod. Now explain how these things apply to Mary herself. Can you do that?

Scripture is in abundance. So is early evidence from the Church that this is what the Church believes. You firmly believe, as do I, that scripture warns us that there will be those who come along teaching falsely, yet when shown that the Early Church reflects Catholic teaching, you prefer to think that the errors came ealier rather than later.

Not just late but early. We can see very early in the fathers that they were teaching things not taught in scripture.

Who is more likely to be in error? Those whom the apostles taught or those who were born 1500 years later?

Since men are fallible and susceptible to error it has happened to both groups.

Actually, those who do not believe that Mary was saved in anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice came much later. All the reformers believe in Mary’s sinlessness.

What you say here was never taught by the apostles and was unknown for centuries. Do you deny this?

You disagree with not only the Catholic church, but those who originally split from Her.

True because i don’t believe men are infallible. There is only one human being that could ever be said of.

Think about it. Your interpretation was not even part of the reformers. Whose interpretation “came along”? Yours, or mine?

I don’t know the reformers that well but i do scripture. The reformers were never infallible nor did they claim to be did they?

You are the one who has the most difficult task to defend. To have to defend all that the catholic church has taught and done for centuries is an impossible task. I have yet to meet a catholic that claims to know all that the catholic teaches.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

Well said!

 

[justasking4]

The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo (Strong’s 5487), meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. This means that the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was not only as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but 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 to have been called “full of grace.”

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Have you looked carefully at your definition? Where does it say that she was sinless?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Have you looked carefully at your definition? Where does it say that she was sinless?

Full of grace means sinless.