Immaculate Conception

[Peter_Dawson]

Christ’s body as resurrected is fully alive although he showed his scars to his apostles and Thomas put his hand in the scar in Christ’s hand. As Christ is fully alive therefore his body is immortal and will not have aged past the year that he died. We believe Christ’s body is in heaven.

Wel-l-l-l, this doesn’t necessarily address my point.

 

[budgie2]

Wel-l-l-l, this doesn’t necessarily address my point.

I don’t know what you mean. Christ’s body as a resurrected body will have eternal youth and we will have resurrected bodies at the day of our own resurrection. This means that Christ is living, eating and breathing in heaven. I suppose he could leave heaven and go somewhere else in the universe or space travel.

I was thinking about the previous comment that Christ as free from sin had to inherit a spotless nature from Mary. It is true that Christ would have inherited fallen nature as Son of Man and in someway this needed to be removed from him. The Church’s current teaching is that his fallen nature was removed from him through Mary. This would read that God raised humanity up through Mary and removed Original Sin from humanity and Christ through Mary. In someway Mary would be Christ’s saviour.

This is a biblical alternative. God removed Original Sin from Christ through baptism and by the hands of John the Baptist and we will all have to be baptised. John the Baptist’s conception was also miraculous although it was not without sex and John the Baptist was necessary to prepare the way for the Lord and make his paths straight. Were his paths crooked? Was John the Baptist essential for Christ’s ministry?

Matthew 3:3
A voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’

Mary may have also needed to be baptised by John the Baptist although this is not documented in scripture.

 

[budgie2]

Sorry to hog this but just to hit the nail on the head. There’s somebody on a different thread confused about the fact in certain Bibles, God says at Christ’s baptism “On this day I have fathered you.” Although in mine it just says “you are my beloved son”. I don’t know which is closer to the truth. It may be that Christ need to be fathered twice by God the father, once at his conception and once at his baptism in which he was born again and became a new child of God. Normally we are only fathered once by God the father. So as Son of God, Christ was fathered by God the father at his conception. As Son of Man Christ’s humanity had to be raised up through baptism to become a child of God. This is my own theology and nobody will read it. Don’t nick. I’ve asked for a Confessor.

 

[antonabe]

There are certain elements in the Catholic Doctrine which we have to believe as we cannot understand everything as the human mind has limitations.However Mary was predestined to bring the saviour into this world and Isaiah’s prophecy that the “Virgin would give birth to the Saviour” was fulfilled and for this to take place the Woman had to be a special person free of original sin and that was Mary.If its some consolation at Lourdes in 1857 three years after the proclamation by the Pope in a Apparition to Bernadette when Mary was asked who she was she said she was"The immaculate Conception"This was lost on the child Bernadette and she did not understand it and she repeated it to the Priest.

 

[Duc_in_Altum]

…]The thing that concerns me is that Mary was not saved in the same way as everybody else ie. through baptism but by virtue of her conception…] .

Hi budgie. Probably you already visited the CA Library. But just in case you haven’t, there’s an interesting article about the Immaculate Conception that might interest you since it addresses your question explaining the title the Angel gave to Mary (“Kecharitomene”). They also use a very simple analogy of what it is to be saved “from the pit” once you have already fallen into it and what it is to be saved before falling into it. In both cases the person needed a Savior: catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

I will look for an argument against you as your explanation is good.

Looking forward to…

God bless,

 

[PJM]

=Peter Dawson;5310303]I’m not trying to be contentious, by asking this, but are you sure that Christ’s body was preserved from decay? Mary was preserved from decay to keep her body perfect. What’s the point, in Jesus’ case? The skin was largely ripped off his body by the scourging. Note that the scourging damage was apparently repaired when He appeared to the Apostles after His resurrection. I think that you may be wrong, in Jesus’ case.

Dear friend,

Jesus could not suffer decay, because when He died, He immediately became God [and “Glorified man”, who cannot suffer and decay. This would be below the dignity of God, who has to be “perfect.”

Keep in mind, that Christ reappeared in His Glorifierd Body, as we will in the second comming. In a sense for Christ, this “was HIS second comming” all though not the one spoke of in the bible as the “final Judgement.”

Love and prayer’s

 

[steve_b]

I personally cannot accept the Immaculate Conception although your explanation seems plausible. The thing that concerns me is that Mary was not saved in the same way as everybody else ie. through baptism but by virtue of her conception. I will look for an argument against you as your explanation is good.

Why are you calling yourself Catholic? You argue against the IC, you think Jesus was a sinner forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5301209&postcount=13

“*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same” (CCC)

This is the thing that SHOULD concern you, AND your preference for seeking arguments that oppose the Catholic faith.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

Sorry to hog this but just to hit the nail on the head. There’s somebody on a different thread confused about the fact in certain Bibles, God says at Christ’s baptism “On this day I have fathered you.” Although in mine it just says “you are my beloved son”. I don’t know which is closer to the truth. It may be that Christ need to be fathered twice by God the father, once at his conception and once at his baptism in which he was born again and became a new child of God. Normally we are only fathered once by God the father. So as Son of God, Christ was fathered by God the father at his conception. As Son of Man Christ’s humanity had to be raised up through baptism to become a child of God. This is my own theology and nobody will read it. Don’t nick. I’ve asked for a Confessor.

Yeah, so they can read your diary and declare you a saint, right?

I am sorry but I still do not accept your argument. If Mary was conceived without Original Sin and assumed into heaven from her conception Mary’s body would have been an immortal body and she would have had eternal youth and her body would not be exactly the same as ours or Christ’s. Christ however had a mortal body from his conception. Did Christ therefore have to inherit Original Sin to also inherit mortality so that he could die and be raised from the dead? I think it’s possible that Christ inherited Original Sin and therefore needed baptism prior to his ministry although baptism could have also been necessary to receive the gift of prophecy and to reveal his divine nature as Son of God. It may be that he needed to inherit Original Sin to inherit mortality which is the opposite of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Another option is that Christ’ conception was the only Immaculate Conception as Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit and therefore his conception could be seen as sacramental. ** By requesting a confessor I mean I need a priest to read my diary and I’m going to be a famous saint so listen to me please**.

Edited to add:
What I don’t get is…
You refuse to accept Catholic doctrine. You say your sole authority is the Bible, and won’t listen to Canon law and the Catechism. Then you say things like “I will not be excommunicated.”

James, are you prepared to believe that Mary is the only human being in history to never have died and be resurrected? I’m not. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility are the Achilles’ Heel of the Catholic Church. I will not be excommunicated. I have demanded a confessor. I’ve looked at your links. I already prayed the Divine Mercy until my son was born.

So, you refuse to accept certain things like Canon law and the Catechism, but you understand and acknowledge the concept of excommunication.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by budgie2

Sorry to hog this but just to hit the nail on the head. There’s somebody on a different thread confused about the fact in certain Bibles, God says at Christ’s baptism “On this day I have fathered you.” Although in mine it just says “you are my beloved son”. I don’t know which is closer to the truth.

Friend, guess what both are saying and expressing the same truth! God “begot” God through the free assent of Mary, and the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, who too is God. Amen?** Luke 1: 35.**

It may be that Christ need to be fathered twice by God the father

, once at his conception and once at his baptism in which he was born again and became a new child of God.

**Dear budgie2, please do not take what I am about to share as a personal affort to you!

If there has ever been a single post that confirms and affirms the danger to souls of “self / personal bible interpetation,” this one does the job! This issue is of extreme importance, and is the single biggest [not only, but the most signifiant] issue that explains how in about 400 years their are now, “world wide” some 30,000 different Christian denominations. Each proclaiming what they HOLD to be true. IMPOSSIBLE! Their can only and logically be ONE truth for every issue! Compare that to the Catholic Church which for 2,000 years has held to One God, One Faith, One set of Beliefs and ONE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY SAYS, because that is exactly and precisely what Christ wanted.**

Normally we are only fathered once by God the father. So as Son of God, Christ was fathered by God the father at his conception [No actually it was The Holy Spirit, and yes, THEY ARE the same God] . As Son of Man Christ’s humanity had to be raised up through baptism to become a child of God. This is my own theology and nobody will read it. Don’t nick. I’ve asked for a Confessor.

No, actually Christ was Baptized to demonistrate that humany was in need of Salvation, and that Baptism is a essential and necessary part of the process unto personal salvation.

Love and prayers,

Again poster, please do not take this reply too personaly. But God neven intended every person He Created to interpet in a way that suits them, His Holy and Dively inspired Word.

 

[dannyblaze]

The Doctrine was pronounced infallibly in 1851, however this is misleading, since the doctrine is MUCH older, and what happened in 1851 was that the teaching was raised in status, so that it was no longer a basis for argument.

You are right, the teaching that Our Lady lived a sinless life has been taught from the very beginning, and you are right that the teaching the immaculate conception of Mary is older than 1851. The teaching of the immaculate conception of Mary goes back to the 9th century by Abbot of Corvey, Paschasius Radbertus, expressed the opinion that the Holy Virgin was conceived without original sin. Saints Thomas and Bernard both refuted this teaching and for many centuries it was a fight between the different schools of thought until 1851 when Pope Pius XI made it an official dogma to be believed by all Roman Catholics.

There is a lot that needs to be challenged on the immaculate conception because nothing in Sacred Scripture teaches this doctrine and it wasn’t until the 9th century as stated above that this teaching began be propagated.

I know this is a very simple a crude outline and I don’t claim to be a scholar by any means but I can read the historical teachings of the church and this doctrine is something that I don’t think meshes with what was handed down to us from Christ, the Holy Apostles and the Church Fathers until much, much later.

The real issue here is that if one really is honest about history, the only Immaculate Conception is the of Jesus Christ our Lord. Our Lady was born the natural way as all of us were born. The Church has taught and still does (Eastern Orthodox) that only Jesus was conceived without sin. Our Lady was given great grace from God but nonetheless she was not conceived without sin, that would make her merits not only void, it would place her on the same level as Christ Himself, and that is something that I would certainly challenge.

I know that there have been “vision and apparitions” that claim to be Our Lady making claims that Our Lady was conceived without sin, but these are not only the visions of some individual nuns and monks, but very, very subjective at best.

I know that this will upset some but I will tell you right now, Our Lady lived a life free of sin because of the Grace of God, Our Lady was and is ever Virgin and the greatest example for us to follow as one who committed her complete life to Our Savior Jesus Christ even as Our Lady states, “I thank God my Savior…”

 

[Unwanted]

‘Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius; Ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus’ (i.e., she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt assail her heel). Here the ipsa is referred to the woman (mulier), and understood of the Virgin Mary. And it is inferred that the divinely constituted enmity between Mary and Satan must be unconditional and eternal, which would not be the case if she had ever been subject to hereditary sin.

The latin is from your Vulgate. It is clearly a mistranslation. Furthermore, it is on this exact translation that Pope Pius IX gave his infallable sanction of the protevangelium to Mary in his Encyclical on the dogma.

Next, we have the idea that the enemity between the women and Satan is between Mary and Satan.

Speil, in his defense of Romanism against Hase, argues in this way: The woman, whom God will put in enmity against the devil, must be a future particular woman, over whom the devil never had any power—that is, a woman who, by the grace of God, was free from original sin

• Die Lehren der katholischen Kirche, 1865, p. 165

Yet how can this be? If it is the future women’s offspring who will have the enemity of satan, then why did any in the OT recieve it?

Unless mary were already alive at this point - at Genesis 3:15. This idea would elivate her to the staus of a diety.

This is just the surface of this doctrine.

To refute it: show me that the origional latin vulgate, which Pope Pius IX bassed his proclomation off of, did not say this.

Next, explain why it is Mary, and not Eve, who is cursed in Gen 3:15

Finally, explain to me why it is that a sinless being would be cursed by God.

If you can do those three, then we shall move deeper into this dogma.

---

Please note: while my style is harsh, it is to the point. I mean by it no offense, but I see no point in softening it either. If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

The latin is from your Vulgate. It is clearly a mistranslation.

How so?

‘Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius; Ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus’ (i.e., she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt assail her heel).

Seems accurate.

Hostility set between you and the woman, and your seed and the seed of that person; herself crush your head, and you will ambush her heel.

Granted, I’m not an expert in the Latin language, and all I was using was my Latin to English dictionary that I got when I took Latin in high school, but the section that was quoted that was translated to English seems accurate.

 

[CrossTiber]

Having been raised in a fundamentalist home, this is one doctrine I really battle with. In the course of my recent investigation into Catholicism I am finding a lot of the other unique doctrines and practices are quite reasonable…but I respectfully struggle with the idea that Mary was wholly sinless. Granted, the ark of the covenant parallel makes some sense, but then there is the ‘‘all have sinned’’ of Paul in Romans 3:23…

Any light people can shed on this one will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Unwanted]

The exact litteral translation of the scripture is “It will crush…”

As to what the “It” is, that is up to speualtion. Protestants claim Jesus, Catholics claim Mary, the Jews claim that it is the entirety of the desendents of Eve, which will eventualy include the Messiah (although they do not believe this points exclusively to Jesus). As these scriptures are the providence of Hebrew scholars long before Christianity was around, I am inclined to view it their way - not Mary, and claiming as much is a mistranslation.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

You’re talking about ipsa?

Actually, ipsum would be it as it’s neutral. Ipsa is feminine (herself), and either ipsus or more likely, ipse is masculine (himself).

Even some online dictionaries show it that way

ipse ipsa ipsum : himself, herself, itself.

Here you can even search for english words translated into Latin.
Herself brings up sui, ipse ipsa ipsum, sese. Sui is the one I’m familiar with.
Itself only brings up one, sese
Latin to English
Ipsa brings up ipse ipsa ipsum himself, herself, itself.

Then there’s this site, which shows the whole ipse, ipsa, ipsum thing too.

Words ending in A are feminine, US are masculine, and UM are neutral. Itself it neutral. So literally, ipsa translates to a feminine self, or herself.

 

[steve_b]

Having been raised in a fundamentalist home, this is one doctrine I really battle with. In the course of my recent investigation into Catholicism I am finding a lot of the other unique doctrines and practices are quite reasonable…but I respectfully struggle with the idea that Mary was wholly sinless. Granted, the ark of the covenant parallel makes some sense, but then there is the** ‘‘all** have sinned’’ of Paul in Romans 3:23…

Any light people can shed on this one will be greatly appreciated.

If there is but ONE exception to ALL, then ALL doesn’t mean ALL in an absolute distributive sense. The obvious exception is Jesus. But notice Paul didn’t make that exception when he quotes an OT passage in a NT setting…

Being created without sin and living without sin is not new. It was already done with Adam and Eve. It’s just that ultimately they didn’t stay that way. But they should have. That’s why Jesus became incarnate so He could reorder the 1st Adam’s life. And Mary was the new Eve.

So the issue it seems to me is not over creating Mary without sin as in the IC, because God already did it before and He does it again with Mary. But the issue of maintaining Mary sinnless throughout her life is what non Catholics don’t buy… If Jesus, 2nd person of the blessed Trinity, and savior of the world, through whom all thins are created, is not able to do this for His mother, then the following passage from Jude IMO makes no sense.

Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. (Jude 24-25)

Mary couldn’t be immaculate by herself she needed her Son.

Scripturally, the key is the Angel Gabriel’s greeting to Mary

in the angel’s greeting to Mary, The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” [Luke 1:28].

The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word *kecharitomene *χαριτόω charitoō ]. It expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

Tense: Perfect,
Mood: Passive

Perfect tense means having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.

Therefore, the grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present and into the future.

• So, the grace Mary enjoyed from her beginning (conception), was not a result of the angel’s visit. 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. And the archangel Gabriel was addressing her for who she is in the sight of God.

Sin cannot be in her if she is perfectly and permanently graced.

Passive mood, means it was done to her without her doing anything on her own. It is truly a special gift from God.

Therefore, God made her without sin, just like He made Eve without sin, AND God preserved Mary without sin by a special grace perfectly applied

 

[Unwanted]

If there is but ONE exception to ALL, then ALL doesn’t mean ALL in an absolute distributive sense. The obvious exception is Jesus. But notice Paul didn’t make that exception when he quotes an OT passage in a NT setting…

Being created without sin and living without sin is not new. It was already done with Adam and Eve. It’s just that ultimately they didn’t stay that way. But they should have. That’s why Jesus became incarnate so He could reorder the 1st Adam’s life. And Mary was the new Eve.

So the issue it seems to me is not over creating Mary without sin as in the IC, because God already did it before and He does it again with Mary. But the issue of maintaining Mary sinnless throughout her life is what non Catholics don’t buy… If Jesus, 2nd person of the blessed Trinity, and savior of the world, through whom all thins are created, is not able to do this for His mother, then the following passage from Jude IMO makes no sense.

Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. (Jude 24-25)

Mary couldn’t be immaculate by herself she needed her Son.

Scripturally, the key is the Angel Gabriel’s greeting to Mary

in the angel’s greeting to Mary, The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” [Luke 1:28].

The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word *kecharitomene *χαριτόω charitoō ]. It expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

Tense: Perfect,
Mood: Passive

Perfect tense means having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.

Therefore, the grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present and into the future.

• So, the grace Mary enjoyed from her beginning (conception), was not a result of the angel’s visit. 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. And the archangel Gabriel was addressing her for who she is in the sight of God.

Sin cannot be in her if she is perfectly and permanently graced.

Passive mood, means it was done to her without her doing anything on her own. It is truly a special gift from God.

Therefore, God made her without sin, just like He made Eve without sin, AND God preserved Mary without sin by a special grace perfectly applied

First of all, the obvious exception is not Jesus.

“For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God”

If you are God, then you have not fallen short of your own glory and have not sinned - or was Jesus not God at when he was on earth??? (Note: last sentence satirical)

Second of all, exactly what was this Grace Mary recieved? Where does it define it, or is this just an assuption.

Also, consider

Mary herself has made the application; for she calls God her Saviour (Luke i. 47: ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου), and thereby includes herself in the number of the redeemed. With this corresponds also the proper meaning of the predicate applied to her by the angel, Luke i. 28, κεχαριτωμένη, highly favored, endued with grace (die begnadigte), the one who received, and therefore needed, grace (non ut mater gratiæ, sed ut filia gratiæ, as Bengel well observes); comp. ver. 30, εὗρες χάριν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, thou hast found grace with God; and Eph. i. 6, ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς, he bestowed grace upon us. But the Vulgate changed the passive meaning into the active: gratia plena, full of grace, and thus furnished a spurious argument for an error

Also, where does it define this as being a unique grace given to Mary?
Also, where does it define when she recieved this Grace. Assuming your points are valid, why not 3 minutes before the Angel showed up. It would be in the past would it not? Why at conception?

 

[steve_b]

First of all, the obvious exception is not Jesus.

“For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God”

If you are God, then you have not fallen short of your own glory and have not sinned - or was Jesus not God at when he was on earth??? (Note: last sentence satirical)

Jesus was 100% human also. If it was so obvious that Jesus didn’t/couldn’t sin because he is God, then the Letter to the Hebrews wouldn’t have to make the point that Jesus was like us in everything but sin.
un:

Second of all, exactly what was this Grace Mary recieved? Where does it define it, or is this just an assuption.

Did you miss the explanation with the angel Gabriel’s greeting to Mary?
un:

Also, consider

Also, where does it define this as being a unique grace given to Mary?

Can you point to any other person in scripture who was greeted by an archangel as being full of grace, in the perfect tense?
un:

Also, where does it define when she recieved this Grace. Assuming your points are valid, why not 3 minutes before the Angel showed up. It would be in the past would it not? Why at conception?

Go back and read the definition of perfect tense for that word used…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5319755&postcount=35

 

[antonabe]

After his Baptism it is mentioned in Scripture that Jesus was subjected to temptation by Satan.He was therefore human but the Devil could not get the better of him and he did not Sin.He did not Sin because he was Divine but because his human nature was steadfast.In the same light he suffered and was killed because of his human nature.He could have escaped from his enemies and he did that several times before because he was God but he underwent torture and death because that was the price that he had to pay for the salvation of mankind.

 

[budgie2]

Jesus was 100% human also. If it was so obvious that Jesus didn’t/couldn’t sin because he is God, then the Letter to the Hebrews wouldn’t have to make the point that Jesus was like us in everything but sin.

Did you miss the explanation with the angel Gabriel’s greeting to Mary?

Can you point to any other person in scripture who was greeted by an archangel as being full of grace, in the perfect tense?

Go back and read the definition of perfect tense for that word used…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5319755&postcount=35

Full of grace does not mean sinless from conception. Anybody can be full of grace, the priest, a nun or a married lay person. Full of grace just means that the Holy Spirit bestowed grace on her at the time of Christ’s conception. We receive grace in the sacraments, which are outward signs of inward grace and we also receive the Holy Spirit so Christ’s conception could be compared to a sacrament such as the Eucharist which Mary received. Nor does the Angel say “Hail, Immaculate Queen” or anything about Mary’s conception although you might want to change the scripture in order to back up your fraudulent arguments. None of your arguments are convincing to me.

It is true that Mary is Ark of the Covenant as she carried Christ in her womb. Christ’s body and blood were the new covenant which he instituted at the last supper. We are also arks of the covenant as we receive the Eucharist and we carry the law of the Lord within our hearts.