Immaculate conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter FireFromHeaven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FireFromHeaven

Guest
I read that several of the saints denied the immaculate conception. That made me think. As Catholics how do we show Mary was immaculately conceived both from the bible and the early church fathers? Thanks.
 
FireFromHeaven said:
I read that several of the saints denied the immaculate conception. That made me think. As Catholics how do we show Mary was immaculately conceived both from the bible and the early church fathers? Thanks.
Click to expand...
The fact is that, although many Fathers speak highly of the blessed virgin’s virtues, they never say she was immaculately conceived. A few esoteric patristics like Ephraim the Syrian might hint at it, but it is not obvious.

We do not endeavor to parse each doctrine. Either a man accepts the authoritative binding-and-loosing power of the Church, or he does not. The truths of the faith are demonstrated by a demonstration of the truth of the Church. 🙂 This is the ultimate fact to get under our wings.
 
FireFromHeaven said:
I read that several of the saints denied the immaculate conception. That made me think. As Catholics how do we show Mary was immaculately conceived both from the bible and the early church fathers? Thanks.
Click to expand...
The dogma itself was only promulgated in 1854, before that theologians and saints could legitimately argue over this point and even choose not to believe it. Many did not believe it due to the poor standard of biological sciences available to them at the time.

St. Thomas Aquinas and many others did not believe the Immaculate Conception would have been possible as they held to an Aristotelian biological model which held that human ensoulment didn’t occur until about 40 days or so after conception(the foetus would first have a vegetative soul, then a sensitive soul, and once the foetus finally began to resemble a human person God would finally create a rational human soul) making an Immaculate Conception impossible. However St.Thomas did believe in Mary’s perpetual sinlessness.

Many of the Fathers explicitly believed in the sinlessness of Mary, her immaculate conception is more implied in Scripture and Tradition, with the Fathers often comparing her to the Woman in Genesis and also describing her as the New Eve. The immaculate conception, given our modern understanding of biology, is a logical conclusion of the works of the Fathers.

The Papal Bull,Ineffabilis Deus, which promulgated the Dogma makes several references to scripture and tradition which may be of use to you.
newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm
 
FireFromHeaven said:
I read that several of the saints denied the immaculate conception. That made me think. As Catholics how do we show Mary was immaculately conceived both from the bible and the early church fathers? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, one of the fairly few theological differences between Catholics and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox is over the immaculate conception.

I’ve seen a few quotes from the early Church which could support the doctrine, but most citations are strong enough only to affirm the sinless or near-sinless life of the Virgin Mary.
 
Like the Church fathers of his time St. Thomas Aquinas too denied the I C in his Summa and Compendium of Theologiae. In 1 Timothy 4:10 it says, Christ is the saviour of all men. If Mary were not have incurred the stain of original sin, how could Jesus be the saviour of all men, for Mary then need no saviour for her salvation, since she is free from all sorts of sin. Also, the feast was not then celebrated in the Church of Rome. Therefore Thomas decided to defend the doctrine of universal savior-ship of Jesus at the cost of IC of Mary which was not a dogma then. In the Church IC was a topic of discussion until it was defined a dogma. If it were a dogma at the time of Thomas he would have, no doubt, defended it at any cost. That was his love for the Church of God. It was Dun Scotus who could find a solution later. Therefore the saints including Thomas were not denying the Dogma, but only refuting a heretical attitude of some that Mary didn’t need the merits of Jesus’s death and Resurrection for her redemption. And also it was not a dogma then to refute or deny it.
Hope you got some idea.
 
Fra_Angelo said:
Like the Church fathers of his time St. Thomas Aquinas too denied the I C in his Summa and Compendium of Theologiae. In 1 Timothy 4:10 it says, Christ is the saviour of all men. If Mary were not have incurred the stain of original sin, how could Jesus be the saviour of all men, for Mary then need no saviour for her salvation, since she is free from all sorts of sin. Also, the feast was not then celebrated in the Church of Rome. Therefore Thomas decided to defend the doctrine of universal savior-ship of Jesus at the cost of IC of Mary which was not a dogma then. In the Church IC was a topic of discussion until it was defined a dogma. If it were a dogma at the time of Thomas he would have, no doubt, defended it at any cost. That was his love for the Church of God. It was Dun Scotus who could find a solution later. Therefore the saints including Thomas were not denying the Dogma, but only refuting a heretical attitude of some that Mary didn’t need the merits of Jesus’s death and Resurrection for her redemption. And also it was not a dogma then to refute or deny it.
Hope you got some idea.
Click to expand...
For what it’s worth, it seems that St. Thomas may have ended up embracing the dogma as well, according to theologian Reginald Garrigou-Legrange Here are the texts that Garrigou-Lagrange gives to support his thesis:*In the first period, which was from 1253 to 1254, he affirmed the privilege, for he wrote: “Such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exempt from both original and actual sin.” [Com. in I Sent, d. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3]

In the second period, St. Thomas explicitely denies the Immaculate Conception: “The Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin.” [Summa theologiae IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2]

In the third period, “For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure because she incurred the stain neither of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin.”[Expositio super salutatione angelica]*
 
It’s just one of the least defensible doctines. How do we explain it to solo scriptura Protestants.
 
FireFromHeaven said:
Seriously though how do we defend it.
Click to expand...
With the resources provided in this thread and other Catholic apologetics websites online. Ultimately, you can’t measure the defensibility of a doctrine based on the inability or refusal of skeptics to embrace it.
 
If the history of the teaching and the Scripture passages aren’t sufficient, then there is one
Scripture passage that should settle it, at least for believing Catholics:
“16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,…”

Our Lord would never lie, and neither would He allow a lie to be bound in heaven. How can one doubt the truth of His words or that He lacks the power to carry out what He promises.
 
Fra_Angelo said:
Like the Church fathers of his time St. Thomas Aquinas too denied the I C in his Summa and Compendium of Theologiae. In 1 Timothy 4:10 it says, Christ is the saviour of all men. If Mary were not have incurred the stain of original sin, how could Jesus be the saviour of all men, for Mary then need no saviour for her salvation, since she is free from all sorts of sin. …It was Dun Scotus who could find a solution later. Therefore the saints including Thomas were not denying the Dogma, but only refuting a heretical attitude of some that Mary didn’t need the merits of Jesus’s death and Resurrection for her redemption. And also it was not a dogma then to refute or deny it.
Hope you got some idea.
Click to expand...
👍 That is what I have also read: that early on, it was the problem of reconciling the necessity of all for a savior in one who is free from all sin (original and personal); that it was that dilemma which kept the teaching from being proclaimed earlier as dogma. Thank you Dun Scotus.
 
FireFromHeaven said:
I read that several of the saints denied the immaculate conception. That made me think. As Catholics how do we show Mary was immaculately conceived both from the bible and the early church fathers? Thanks.
Click to expand...
The revealed truth of the immaculate conception starts all the way back in Genesis.

He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:24)

The first Eve sinned. God had already envisioned creating Mary whose fiat, whose yes, would reverse the sin of Eve. Jesus is life. The fruit of Mary’s womb is Jesus. Mary is therefor the tree of life, which God drove man away from and guarded against all impurity.

Mary is forshadowed in the Ark of the Covenant.

And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there because he put forth his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God. (2 Samuel 6:6-7)

No one touched the Ark of God. No human, and no stain, touched Mary.

There are other biblical themes and passages. I’ll try to post more later if I remember.

-Tim-
 
I must admit I struggle with this one. If Mary had to be sinless then why not her parents before her? Could Christ really not be born of a normal human womb? I thought that was kind of the point, that He came down to be one of us.
 
Eruvande said:
I must admit I struggle with this one. If Mary had to be sinless then why not her parents before her? Could Christ really not be born of a normal human womb? I thought that was kind of the point, that He came down to be one of us.
Click to expand...
Because ‘the Ark’ is preserved inviolate on the interior–not the exterior. The exterior is desiged to protect the ‘Word of God’ from the elements, and other corrosive forces. It is the interior, which must remain inviolate and immaculate. Hence it doesn’t matter that St. Anne was not preserved from original sin–Mary’s interior was protected by her exterior, as the exterior of the Ark of the Covenenant protected its interior–and therefore St. Anne’s interior did not need to be immaculate.
 
Some fairly compelling quotes from the CF’s:
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”
Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94
Click to expand...
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.”
Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94
Click to expand...
“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.”
Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254
Click to expand...
“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.”
"Ephraem,Nisibene Hymns,27:8(A.D. 370),in THEO,132
Click to expand...
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.”
Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166
Click to expand...
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.”
Augustine,Nature and Grace,4236,in NPNF1,V:135
Click to expand...
“As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.”
Proclus of Constantinople,Homily 1(ante A.D. 446),in ULL,97
Click to expand...
“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.”
Theodotus of Ancrya,Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446),in THEO,339
Click to expand...
“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.”
Peter Chrysologus,Sermon 140(A.D. 449),in ULL,97
Click to expand...
“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.”
Jacob of Sarug(ante A.D. 521),in CE
Click to expand...
“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation”
Andrew of Crete,Sermon I,On the Birth of Mary(A.D. 733),in THEO,180
Click to expand...
“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.”
John of Damascus,Homily I in Nativ.(ante A.D. 749),in THEO,200
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top