Immaculate Conception of Mary

[Mannyfit75]

Clearly this is a perfect example of Magesterium superceding over the God-Breathed scriptures. Trust in the church no matter what the scripture says. Sola Ecclesia.

The “infallible” church usurping the authority from the Word of God.

The word of men, nullifying the Word of God.

The violence to the plain meaning of scripture for the sake of tradition is stunning.

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

1 tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

How does it nullifying God? Is it so wrong to have Jesus get his Mother in heaven? What is wrong with that? Is that against God? If you have love a mother that much, who nurture you during your time as infant, and all of suddenly since she is old, do you throw her off the streets because her job is done?

How insulting can a son do to his mother by rejecting her? Jesus in his own power took Mary and assumed her Body and Soul into heaven. The Book of Revelation attest to this very clearly as well as the testimony of the Early Church Fathers.

Nullify God, that is just pure Protestant bias. Mary nurture Jesus and remain with him even at the foot of the Cross. Do you think Jesus would just throw his mommy away after he went to His Father, Our Father in Heaven? Do you think he would dishonor her like that?

Do you not know that it was Mary’s own flesh and blood, that Jesus became flesh when she said, “Be it Done Unto Me, according to Your Word.” She consented to God’s will. Because of this God would reward her.

Jesus love his mother and Mary love her son. It is not against God’s will that Mary is taken up! In fact, Mary is a model for us all for in her, we too would be taken up one day in glorified form like her, and like Jesus in the days of the Resurrection.

I also think its very bias of you that there are other accounts of the Bible were prophets were assumed, Elijah and Enoch. Not to mention the two witnesses in the Book of Revelation.

 

[SyCarl]

In Ineffablis Deus, Pius IX wrote:

The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin – a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God – and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.

He states that the Church has always held the doctrine, presumably through the teaching of the Magisterium, whose teachings are infallible. (Catechism 890-892) He then goes on and, at the end of the encyclical defines the doctrine as :

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” {/Quote]

He then pronounces the consequences of holding a different view.

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

Now Thomas Aquinas wrote:

Reply to Objection 2. If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. …But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. (Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 27, Article 1

newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#2

However close he may have been by stating she had been made sinless before her birth, Aquinas does say that Mary contracted original sin. Does this then make Aquinas a heretic?

 

[JaneFrances]

Clearly this is a perfect example of Magesterium superceding over the God-Breathed scriptures. Trust in the church no matter what the scripture says. Sola Ecclesia.

The violence to the plain meaning of scripture for the sake of tradition is stunning.

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

1 tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

The Biblical usage of the word “all” as you have cited in Romans 3:23 does not require the “no individual exception” rule which many Protestants insist it does.

For, “all,” or the Greek “pas,” to mean “every single one with no exception” would require that Jesus Christ, God Himself, being fully Man, would have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In the same way, for “all” to mean “every single person, no exception”, one would have to accept this passage applies even to newborn babies who die without having actually sinned.

Instead, “pas” or “all,” actually can refer to a general sense as in the case of many Biblical passages. Charles Spurgeon, the 19th century Baptist preacher, clarifies:

“… ‘The whole world is gone after him.’ Did all the world go after Christ? ‘Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.’ Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? ‘Ye are of God, little children’, and ‘the whole world lieth in the wicked one.’ Does ‘the whole world’ there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were ‘of God?’ The words ‘world’ and ‘all’ are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that ‘all’ means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile.” (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).

 

[kaycee]

The enemy status between the woman and the serpent is polar. The woman, the mother of the Messiah, typifies grace, while the serpent, Satan, typifies sin. The polar enemies of grace and sin/woman and serpent do not allow for the understated sense of “tension,” but rather the realization that grace and sin are so opposed that each exists as the natural enemy of the other.

The enmity is polar not the opponents.

Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of enmity, 2:15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace….

Was the Law total evil to Gods perfection? Your reading into it something totaly foreign.

Is there enmity between the bloods and the crypts? Anyone there have sinless perfection?

 

[Mannyfit75]

SyCarl:

In Ineffablis Deus, Pius IX wrote:

He states that the Church has always held the doctrine, presumably through the teaching of the Magisterium, whose teachings are infallible. (Catechism 890-892) He then goes on and, at the end of the encyclical defines the doctrine as :

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” {/QUOTE]

He then pronounces the consequences of holding a different view.

Now Thomas Aquinas wrote:

newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#2

However close he may have been by stating she had been made sinless before her birth, Aquinas does say that Mary contracted original sin. Does this then make Aquinas a heretic?

Actually those are objection that Thomas Aquinas had to answer to.

He (Thomas Aquinas replied the following:

I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: “(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.” Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Luke 1:30-31): “Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,” etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: “The glory of children are their fathers”: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother’s shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Corinthians 6:15): “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the “Divine Wisdom” (1 Corinthians 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wisdom 1:4): “Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.”

We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Canticles 4:7) is fulfilled: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,” etc.

 

[kaycee]

The Biblical usage of the word “all” as you have cited in Romans 3:23 does not require the “no individual exception” rule which many Protestants insist it does.

For, “all,” or the Greek “pas,” to mean “every single one with no exception” would require that Jesus Christ, God Himself, being fully Man, would have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In the same way, for “all” to mean “every single person, no exception”, one would have to accept this passage applies even to newborn babies who die without having actually sinned.

Instead, “pas” or “all,” actually can refer to a general sense as in the case of many Biblical passages. Charles Spurgeon, the 19th century Baptist preacher, clarifies:

I think Spurgeon would be very surprised to find out he did not believe in the Total depravity of man

Clearly his statement you copied allows for this usage. “and it is very **rarely **that ‘all’ means all persons, taken individually”

Rom 3
10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17And the way of peace have they not known:
18There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

What does the T in TULIP stand for again?

 

[SyCarl]

Actually those are objection that Thomas Aquinas had to answer to.

He (Thomas Aquinas replied the following:

Actually no. He was defending against the proposition that Mary was conceived without original sin… His method was to state the question he was dealing with and then list the objections to his view. Then he would state his view and reply to each of the objections.
His format was:

Question…
Objections…
On the contrary…
I answer that…
Reply to Objections

I would suggest you follow the link I gave and see for yourself.

Yes he held she committed no actual sin, but he denied that she was always free from actual sin.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually no. He was defending against the proposition that Mary was conceived without original sin… His method was to state the question he was dealing with and then list the objections to his view. Then he would state his view and reply to each of the objections.
His format was:

Question…
Objections…
On the contrary…
I answer that…
Reply to Objections

I would suggest you follow the link I gave and see for yourself.

I did but his answers support that Mary was preserved from sin.

His reply was an answer to the objection.

Here is another “I answer that…”

I answer that, Augustine (Ep. ad Dardan.) seems to speak dubiously of their (Jeremias’ and John the Baptist’s) sanctification in the womb. For the leaping of John in the womb “might,” as he says, “signify the great truth,” viz. that the woman was the mother of God, “which was to be made known to his elders, though as yet unknown to the infant. Hence in the Gospel it is written, not that the infant in her womb believed, but that it ‘leaped’: and our eyes are witness that not only infants leap but also cattle. But this was unwonted because it was in the womb. And therefore, just as other miracles are wont to be done, this was done divinely, in the infant; not humanly by the infant. Perhaps also in this child the use of reason and will was so far accelerated that while yet in his mother’s womb he was able to acknowledge, believe, and consent, whereas in other children we have to wait for these things till they grow older: this again I count as a miraculous result of the divine power.”

But since it is expressly said (of John) in the Gospel that “he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb”; and of Jeremias, “Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee”; it seems that we must needs assert that they were sanctified in the womb, although, while in the womb, they had not the use of reason (which is the point discussed by Augustine); just as neither do children enjoy the use of free will as soon as they are sanctified by baptism.

Nor are we to believe that any others, not mentioned by Scripture, were sanctified in the womb. For such privileges of grace, which are bestowed on some, outside the common law, are ordered for the salvation of others, according to 1 Cor. 12:7: “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit,” which would not result from the sanctification of anyone unless it were made known to the Church.

And although it is not possible to assign a reason for God’s judgments, for instance, why He bestows such a grace on one and not on another, yet there seems to be a certain fittingness in both of these being sanctified in the womb, by their foreshadowing the sanctification which was to be effected through Christ. First, as to His Passion, according to Heb. 13:12: “Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate”: which Passion Jeremias foretold openly by words and by symbols, and most clearly foreshadowed by his own sufferings. Secondly, as to His Baptism (1 Corinthians 6:11): “But you are washed, but you are sanctified”; to which Baptism John prepared men by his baptism.

 

[SyCarl]

I did but his answers support that Mary was preserved from sin.

His reply was an answer to the objection.

Here is another “I answer that…”

I answer that, Augustine (Ep. ad Dardan.) seems to speak dubiously of their (Jeremias’ and John the Baptist’s) sanctification in the womb. For the leaping of John in the womb “might,” as he says, “signify the great truth,” viz. that the woman was the mother of God, “which was to be made known to his elders, though as yet unknown to the infant. Hence in the Gospel it is written, not that the infant in her womb believed, but that it ‘leaped’: and our eyes are witness that not only infants leap but also cattle. But this was unwonted because it was in the womb. And therefore, just as other miracles are wont to be done, this was done divinely, in the infant; not humanly by the infant. Perhaps also in this child the use of reason and will was so far accelerated that while yet in his mother’s womb he was able to acknowledge, believe, and consent, whereas in other children we have to wait for these things till they grow older: this again I count as a miraculous result of the divine power.”

But since it is expressly said (of John) in the Gospel that “he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb”; and of Jeremias, “Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee”; it seems that we must needs assert that they were sanctified in the womb, although, while in the womb, they had not the use of reason (which is the point discussed by Augustine); just as neither do children enjoy the use of free will as soon as they are sanctified by baptism.

Nor are we to believe that any others, not mentioned by Scripture, were sanctified in the womb. For such privileges of grace, which are bestowed on some, outside the common law, are ordered for the salvation of others, according to 1 Cor. 12:7: “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit,” which would not result from the sanctification of anyone unless it were made known to the Church.

And although it is not possible to assign a reason for God’s judgments, for instance, why He bestows such a grace on one and not on another, yet there seems to be a certain fittingness in both of these being sanctified in the womb, by their foreshadowing the sanctification which was to be effected through Christ. First, as to His Passion, according to Heb. 13:12: “Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate”: which Passion Jeremias foretold openly by words and by symbols, and most clearly foreshadowed by his own sufferings. Secondly, as to His Baptism (1 Corinthians 6:11): “But you are washed, but you are sanctified”; to which Baptism John prepared men by his baptism.

How does this say that she never incurred the stain of original sin?

But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb.

 

[Mannyfit75]

How does this say that she never incurred the stain of original sin?

She never sinned. The quote which you stated was an objection in which St. Thomas Aquinas had to answer. In his response which I already posted stated this.

Which I may have to repost again:
Thomas Aquinas:

I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: “(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.” Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Luke 1:30-31): “Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,” etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: “The glory of children are their fathers”: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother’s shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Corinthians 6:15): “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the “Divine Wisdom” (1 Corinthians 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wisdom 1:4): “Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.”

We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Canticles 4:7) is fulfilled: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,” etc.

 

[Mannyfit75]

St Thomas also answer the objection 4

He answers.

Objection 4. Further, original sin is contracted through the origin, just as actual sin is contracted through an act. But as long as one is in the act of sinning, one cannot be cleansed from actual sin. Therefore neither could the Blessed Virgin be cleansed from original sin as long as she was in the act of origin, by existence in her mother’s womb.

**On the contrary, The Church celebrates the feast of our Lady’s Nativity. Now the Church does not celebrate feasts except of those who are holy. Therefore even in her birth the Blessed Virgin was holy. Therefore she was sanctified in the womb. **

I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this; so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb. For it is reasonable to believe that she, who brought forth “the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth,” received greater privileges of grace than all others: hence we read (Luke 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words: “Hail full of grace!” **
Moreover, it is to be observed that it was granted, by way of privilege, to others, to be sanctified in the womb; for instance, to Jeremias, to whom it was said (Jeremiah 1:5): “Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee”; and again, to John the Baptist, of whom it is written (Luke 1:15): “He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb.” It is therefore with reason that we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb. **

newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#2

 

[SyCarl]

This is the question I was using.

Article 1. Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb?

Objection 1. It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb. For the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 15:46): “That was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual.” But by sanctifying grace man is born spiritually into a son of God according to John 1:13: “(who) are born of God.” But birth from the womb is a natural birth. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb.

Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan.): “The sanctification, by which we become temples of God, is only of those who are born again.” But no one is born again, who was not born previously. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb.

Objection 3. Further, whoever is sanctified by grace is cleansed from sin, both original and actual. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb, it follows that she was then cleansed from original sin. Now nothing but original sin could hinder her from entering the heavenly kingdom. If therefore she had died then, it seems that she would have entered the gates of heaven. But this was not possible before the Passion of Christ, according to the Apostle (Hebrews 10:19): “We have [Vulg.: ‘having’] therefore a confidence in the entering into the Holies by His blood.” It seems therefore that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb.

Objection 4. Further, original sin is contracted through the origin, just as actual sin is contracted through an act. But as long as one is in the act of sinning, one cannot be cleansed from actual sin. Therefore neither could the Blessed Virgin be cleansed from original sin as long as she was in the act of origin, by existence in her mother’s womb.

On the contrary, The Church celebrates the feast of our Lady’s Nativity. Now the Church does not celebrate feasts except of those who are holy. Therefore even in her birth the Blessed Virgin was holy. Therefore she was sanctified in the womb.

I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this; so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb. For it is reasonable to believe that she, who brought forth “the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth,” received greater privileges of grace than all others: hence we read (Luke 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words: “Hail full of grace!”

Moreover, it is to be observed that it was granted, by way of privilege, to others, to be sanctified in the womb; for instance, to Jeremias, to whom it was said (Jeremiah 1:5): “Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee”; and again, to John the Baptist, of whom it is written (Luke 1:15): “He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb.” It is therefore with reason that we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb.

Reply to Objection 1. Even in the Blessed Virgin, first was that which is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual: for she was first conceived in the flesh, and afterwards sanctified in the spirit.

Reply to Objection 2. Augustine speaks according to the common law, by reason of which no one is regenerated by the sacraments, save those who are previously born. But God did not so limit His power to the law of the sacraments, but that He can bestow His grace, by special privilege, on some before they are born from the womb.

Reply to Objection 3. The Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb from original sin, as to the personal stain; but she was not freed from the guilt to which the whole nature is subject, so as to enter into Paradise otherwise than through the Sacrifice of Christ; the same also is to be said of the Holy Fathers who lived before Christ.

Reply to Objection 4. Original sin is transmitted through the origin, inasmuch as through the origin the human nature is transmitted, and original sin, properly speaking, affects the nature. And this takes place when the off-spring conceived is animated. Wherefore nothing hinders the offspring conceived from being sanctified after animation: for after this it remains in the mother’s womb not for the purpose of receiving human nature, but for a certain perfecting of that which it has already received.

to be continued

 

[SyCarl]

You are looking at Article 4 which deals with Mary being free from actual sin, not original sin. Article 1, which I was quoting from deals with whether she was ever subject to original sin, which he says she was. She was cleansed from it before birth, but not from conception, which is the subject of the doctrine.

 

[kaycee]

How does it nullifying God? Is it so wrong to have Jesus get his Mother in heaven? What is wrong with that? Is that against God? If you have love a mother that much, who nurture you during your time as infant, and all of suddenly since she is old, do you throw her off the streets because her job is done?

Not following you here. No one is saying Mary is not in heaven, offcourse she is. She got there like all other sinners.

She called God her savior, just like other OT and NT saints.

How insulting can a son do to his mother by rejecting her?

who is rejecting who? this is the IC of Mary thread, yes?

Jesus in his own power took Mary and assumed her Body and Soul into heaven. The Book of Revelation attest to this very clearly as well as the testimony of the Early Church Fathers.

Well, that certainly news to all the writers of scripture.

Nullify God, that is just pure Protestant bias. Mary nurture Jesus and remain with him even at the foot of the Cross. Do you think Jesus would just throw his mommy away after he went to His Father, Our Father in Heaven? Do you think he would dishonor her like that?

What are you talking about? She is in heaven. Just like all the other Saints of God. The Word of God cannot be broken to accomadate sentimental feelings from human family dynamics.

Do you not know that it was Mary’s own flesh and blood, that Jesus became flesh when she said, “Be it Done Unto Me, according to Your Word.” She consented to God’s will. Because of this God would reward her.

Certainly she would be rewarded just like any other saint of God.
Know of any saints that did not consent to God’s will?

Jesus love his mother and Mary love her son. It is not against God’s will that Mary is taken up! In fact, Mary is a model for us all for in her, we too would be taken up one day in glorified form like her, and like Jesus in the days of the Resurrection.

Sorry, but wishful sentimental thoughts are no basis for doctrine. Mary was saved the same way all us other shmucks are.

I also think its very bias of you that there are other accounts of the Bible were prophets were assumed, Elijah and Enoch. Not to mention the two witnesses in the Book of Revelation.

Yes, the main point is those ARE biblical.

To say Mary was sinless and saved at conception is a wild guess based on human maternal fondness.

 

[SyCarl]

Sorry my mistake. I was dealing with Article 2 not 1

Article 2. Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?

Objection 1. It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation. Because, as we have stated (1), more grace was bestowed on the Virgin Mother of God than on any saint. Now it seems to have been granted to some, to be sanctified before animation. For it is written (Jeremiah 1:5): “Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee”: and the soul is not infused before the formation of the body. Likewise Ambrose says of John the Baptist (Comment. in Luc. i, 15): “As yet the spirit of life was not in him and already he possessed the Spirit of grace.” Much more therefore could the Blessed Virgin be sanctified before animation.

Objection 2. Further, as Anselm says (De Concep. Virg. xviii), “it was fitting that this Virgin should shine with such a purity that under God none greater can be imagined”: wherefore it is written (Canticles 4:7): “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee.” But the purity of the Blessed Virgin would have been greater, if she had never been stained by the contagion of original sin. Therefore it was granted to her to be sanctified before her flesh was animated.

Objection 3. Further, as it has been stated above, no feast is celebrated except of some saint. But some keep the feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Therefore it seems that in her very Conception she was holy; and hence that she was sanctified before animation.

Objection 4. Further, the Apostle says (Romans 11:16): “If the root be holy, so are the branches.” Now the root of the children is their parents. Therefore the Blessed Virgin could be sanctified even in her parents, before animation.

to be continued

 

[SyCarl]

continued

On the contrary, The things of the Old Testament were figures of the New, according to 1 Cor. 10:11: “All things happened to them in figure.” Now the sanctification of the tabernacle, of which it is written (Psalm 45:5): “The most High hath sanctified His own tabernacle,” seems to signify the sanctification of the Mother of God, who is called “God’s Tabernacle,” according to Ps. 18:6: “He hath set His tabernacle in the sun.” But of the tabernacle it is written (Exodus 40:31-32): “After all things were perfected, the cloud covered the tabernacle of the testimony, and the glory of the Lord filled it.” Therefore also the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified until after all in her was perfected, viz. her body and soul.

I answer that, The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a “perfect cleansing,” as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.

Secondly, because, since the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, the offspring conceived is not liable to sin. And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Matthew 1:21): “He shall save His people from their sins.” But this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the “Saviour of all men,” as He is called (1 Timothy 4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.

Reply to Objection 1. The Lord says that He “knew” Jeremias before he was formed in the womb, by knowledge, that is to say, of predestination: but He says that He “sanctified” him, not before formation, but before he “came forth out of the womb,” etc. As to what Ambrose says, viz. that in John the Baptist there was not the spirit of life when there was already the Spirit of grace, by spirit of life we are not to understand the life-giving soul, but the air which we breathe out [respiratus]. Or it may be said that in him as yet there was not the spirit of life, that is the soul, as to its manifest and complete operations.

Reply to Objection 2. If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Lk. 1:35: “The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” **But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. **This is what is signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: “Let it expect light,” i.e. Christ, “and not see it”–(because “no defiled thing cometh into her,” as is written in Wisdom 7:25), “nor the rising of the dawning of the day,” that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin.

Reply to Objection 3. Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated. Nevertheless the celebration of this feast does not give us to understand that she was holy in her conception. But since it is not known when she was sanctified, the feast of her Sanctification, rather than the feast of her Conception, is kept on the day of her conception.

Reply to Objection 4. Sanctification is twofold. One is that of the whole nature: inasmuch as the whole human nature is freed from all corruption of sin and punishment. This will take place at the resurrection. The other is personal sanctification. This is not transmitted to the children begotten of the flesh: because it does not regard the flesh but the mind. Consequently, though the parents of the Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin, nevertheless she contracted original sin, since she was conceived by way of fleshly concupiscence and the intercourse of man and woman: for Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): “All flesh born of carnal intercourse is sinful.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

You are looking at Article 4 which deals with Mary being free from actual sin, not original sin. Article 1, which I was quoting from deals with whether she was ever subject to original sin, which he says she was. She was cleansed from it before birth, but not from conception, which is the subject of the doctrine.

Don’t tell me you miss this line from Thomas Aquinas in which he states, It is therefore with reason that we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb.

At the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, there was no pure definition if Mary was preserved from original sin. It was not until Pope Pius IX stated that in December 8, 1854,
*
“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful.”*

Thomas Aquinas lived around 1225-1274 at that time. Thomas Aquinas believe that Mary had no stain in her, and stated this,

*We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Canticles 4:7) is fulfilled: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,” etc. *

His remarks were only verified by Pope Pius IX

 

[SyCarl]

However Pius IX stated in the declaration that the Church had always maintained the doctrine even though it had never been dogmatically defined. If it had always been maintained, it would though have been part of the infallible teaching of the Majisterium which Catholics are bound to believe, are they not?

The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin – a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God – and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.

 

[exoflare]

Wow, what stubborn Protestant resistance this always manages to bring out… it never ceases to amaze me.

Then they bring out the “sola scriptura” defense, as if that notion wasn’t self-refuting enough. Basically, you can’t listen to the Church when they declared the Immaculate Conception, BUT somehow they got the canon of “God-breathed” scripture right. Why do they blindly follow the Church’s decision on which books belonged in scripture, but not their decision regarding the Immaculate Conception?

 

[exoflare]

Pardon me, they blindly follow the Church’s decision on which books belong in scripture, EXCEPT those books that Luther decided to reject. Still, why all the other books? And why take Luther or anyone else at their word as if it were Gospel truth? The point still stands…