Immaculate conceptions in the Bible, ...Mary?

[Tantum_ergo]

I would ask you then to read the entry I posted for a more robust answer through apologetics.

Exactly, and I saw that post when I posted my entry which is why I didn’t go on to repost the same thing. Perhaps Brb is taking time between answering the ‘shorter posts’ to prepare to address your points.

 

[brb3]

HOW does it violate? Scripture does not say that all MUST be conceived in sin, does it?

Mary was saved from sin at conception. WE get saved from sin at baptism because of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, correct?

SO. . .If we can be saved from our sins and have them ‘wiped clean’ at baptism, even though we live 2000 years ‘after’ Christ, and all the dead patriarchs and righteous people had their sins ‘wiped clean’ with that sacrifice of Christ’s even though they lived and died thousands of years BEFORE that sacrifice, you really think that Christ’s sacrifice could not have wiped away one person’s ‘original sin’ before that person’s conception?

When Scripture says that 'before I formed you in the womb I knew you?'

Tell me, Brb, why is it so important in Scripture that the ARK which contains the Holy of Holies is considered itself to be holy? What are the parallels? What did the Old Testament foreshadow?

Don’t u realize that fetus & mom share blood components!! Mom gives fetus necessary protective immune components!!! In point of fact …Mary had her BLOOD BAPTISM… from Christ within her womb !! That’s when MARY WAS CLEANSED of sins !!! She was Baptized before John started Baptizing the Apostles & all others.

 

[R_C]

Yet, scripture teaches that ISAAC & JOHN’s parents were incapable of bearing children by normative means. Those two had Miraculous births, indeed we could say Immaculate ones…since special intervention by God was needed to allow their births.

No. Miraculous birth does not equal immaculate birth. Immaculate means concenived without the inherited stain of original sin, that is, conceived in sanctifying grace. John the Baptist was also born of a miraculous birth but in a most natural way and certainly not in immaculate conception: that is, he was conceived without sanctifying grace, which he would receive at a later point - though still in the womb.

If you want to understand the teaching of immaculate conception, you first must understand this:

CCC 80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.”

Then you must understand this:

the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra …] by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals …] So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

At this point, as a Catholic, you can first accept the following:

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 Saviour 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.

Then you can proceed to further understand it by reading Ineffabilis Deus, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, and Fulgens Corona.

 

[KP3243]

I am pretty sure that Adam and Eve were sinless and Mary was the only other human to recieve this grace. Mary is also the only human an angel addresses by a title and not their name. She also is frightened by Gabriel’s words not by Gabriel himself which is the opposite of every other human angel encounter in the bible.

 

[brb3]

No. Miraculous birth does not equal immaculate birth. Immaculate means concenived without the inherited stain of original sin, that is, conceived in sanctifying grace. John the Baptist was also born of a miraculous birth but in a most natural way and certainly not in immaculate conception: that is, he was conceived without sanctifying grace, which he would receive at a later point - though still in the womb.

If you want to understand the teaching of immaculate conception, you first must understand this:

Then you must understand this:

At this point, as a Catholic, you can first accept the following:

Then you can proceed to further understand it by reading Ineffabilis Deus, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, and Fulgens Corona.

RC…

I don’t deny Mary’s sinless state, and most blessed SUPERSAINT STATUS. Nor do not see/appreciate her as Mother of the God-man Christ …and Spiritual mother of all Christians ( Catholics & Protestant).

But, I don’t see her taught / defined (in Sacred Scripture) as BORN sinless. I don’t see that in Luke’s account, or elsewhere in scripture. And, I don’t think Justin Martyr or Irenaeus believed/ taught this.

Nevertheless, I could be mistaken on those two saints …and please direct me to the early Church writings that support their beliefs on this matter…rather than the recent revelations on Mary.

Whatever the 1st -2nd Century Catholics believed … that I would find the Sine-Quo-Non of our faith, and bedrock dogma !!!

 

[brb3]

There is more than just Luke 1:35 involved, as there are three separate scripture passages referenced. But in all fairness, this isn’t a discussion about whether you agree with Church teaching or not. It was asked where the Church gets scriptural support for the Immaculate Conception. :

)

What I treasure about Catholic Church is our attention to the details…most of what I’ve studied is supported in scripture, with copious footnotes from scripture & ECF writings.
But, the teachings on Mary don’t seem to rise to the same strict doctrinal standards. Thus, Mary’s IC should be an optional matter for us…and not a heresy matter for Catholics!

 

[ahs]

But, I don’t see her taught / defined (in Sacred Scripture) as BORN sinless. I don’t see that in Luke’s account, or elsewhere in scripture.

Because you don’t see it supported in Luke’s account, does this mean that it is not supported? In other words, is brb3 the sole interpreter of Scripture?

And what makes you think it needs to be suported in Scripture? Does Scripture tell us that all Truth must be supported in Scripture?

And, I don’t think Justin Martyr or Irenaeus believed/ taught this.

And I don’t think Irenaeus or Justin Martyr taught something contradictory either. Is there something that makes you believe that all Truth must be spelled out explicitly by the ECF’s in order to be true?

 

[ahs]

What I treasure about Catholic Church is our attention to the details…most of what I’ve studied is supported in scripture, with copious footnotes from scripture & ECF writings.
But, the teachings on Mary don’t seem to rise to the same strict doctrinal standards. Thus, Mary’s IC should be an optional matter for us…and not a heresy matter for Catholics!

Does that mean that you believe Catholics should be free to reject the Authority that Christ gave His Church whenever we don’t agree with a particular Doctrine? Can you support that position with Scripture or the ECF’s?

 

[TimothyH]

Too short an answer TE. U can do better than using ONLY Luke’s “full of grace” passage !!

It is all through Scripture for one who is able to see it.

He expelled the man, stationing the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword east of the garden of Eden, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:24)

One of the spiritual senses of this passage is that the fruit of Mary’s womb is Jesus, and that as she is the tree which produced good fruit for eternal life, God protected Mary from the beginning of time with a cherubim and sword.

As they reached the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah stretched out his hand to the ark of God and steadied it, for the oxen were tipping it. Then the LORD became angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there in God’s presence. (2 Samuel 6:6-7)

If the ark of the covenant is seen as a prefigurment of Mary, then we can clearly see God preserving it’s integrity and purity. No one, expecially a man, was to touch the ark. No one was to touch Mary. Her purity was protected by God from the beginning of her existence.

And there are many, many more prefigurements of God protecting the purity of Mary from the first moment of her existence. Many of the holy women of the Old Tesament forshadow Mary’s absolute purity and cleanliness from the time of her conception. One of the most beautiful stories is of Judith, who aided by God, maintained absolute purity and sanctity “from the time of her youth”. She faced overwhelming curcumstances and through her purity and sanctity brought about the salvation of Israel.

When we look at Scripture as a unified whole, we get a complete picture of the Blessed Virgin, and the only logical conclusion is that she was free from sin, absolutely pure, from the time she started to exist.

-Tim-

 

[anruari]

Too short an answer TE. U can do better than using ONLY Luke’s “full of grace” passage !!

No it’s not too short an answer in the light of the more detailed ones before.

Your question is like asking if there’s any sport in the law for the wankle engine considering the numbers of Toyota Priuses Tesla Volts hydrogen cars and 2 stroke engines around.

Just because none of those cars use standard DOHC 4 cylinder reciprocal internal combustion engines does not make them wankle engines.

May was immaculately concieved. That means that by divine intervention at the moment over her otherwise normal conception (the moment that the Speen and egg meet) the Lord interviewed and saved her from the predisposition to sin that every other human in history has been subject to.

Jesus was not an immaculate conception but was directly and eternally begotten of the father and his implantation into the womb of Mary was by the direct action of the Holy Spirit.
This was the Virgin Birth.

There have been other miraculous births and conceptions where previously barren women have given birth. Some in Scripture others since then. … like the birth of my own son.

Those may be miraculous but they are not immaculate.

We can talk of other special births all you want but let’s use the right terminology.

 

[R_C]

please direct me to the early Church writings that support their beliefs on this matter…rather than the recent revelations on Mary.Whatever the 1st -2nd Century Catholics believed … that I would find the Sine-Quo-Non of our faith, and bedrock dogma !!!

uch: Thanks, but you didn’t really get my point: there is one sacred tradition which in turn is not divided at all but intrinsically united to sacred scripture to form one thing. There is absolutely no separation between “early” sacred tradition and “recent” sacred tradition! This is no “private revelation”, no modern Marian belief: this is official Catholic teaching that is now embedded into sacred tradition in an infallible way, just as if St. Peter himself had written it down.

Remember that there are quite a few things that the Holy Spirit has been revealing to the Church throughout the centuries. If we have issues today understanding Our Lady in God’s divine providence, how much more we would have had two thousand years ago, when people seemed even to struggle with the existence of the Holy Spirit and with the hypostatic union of Christ’s human and divine nature!

Unfortunately I am not that well-versed in the writings of the Church Fathers to know if they specifically mention immaculate conception, or at least the idea of immaculate conception…after all, we spoke of transmutation of the Holy Eucharist for a while, until we could (approximately) define it with better terms.

I found that Origen (Homily, AD 244) calls her:

worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate

and that Hippolytus (source) says in AD 235:

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption.

Finally (since we’re moving too far across the centuries, so somewhat stepping into “less valuable” tradition?) Ambrose of Milan, one of the four original Doctors of the Church, wrote in A.D. 387 (*Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 *):

Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.

There could be even earlier writings, of course. These are just a few I have been able to find. I know that later on, ex. 5th century Proclus of Constantinople writes very clearly (Homily 1):

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.

and in the 6th century we find Romanus the Melodist referring to Our Lady in On the Birth of Mary as “the immaculate one”, showing that the idea was neither new nor strange or external to the Gospel, but, rather, well established in Christianity.

Remember that some concepts were not explicitly and formally defined unless there was a heresy that needed to be condemned. Thus, when the ancient Church Fathers speak of Mary as “sinless”, it was pretty much evident that they included the absence of Original Sin, which would only be possible if she had been conceived immaculate. There was no need to specifically state this out loud: sufficed to say that she was immaculate, that she was exempt from corruption.

 

[brb3]

Because you don’t see it supported in Luke’s account, does this mean that it is not supported? In other words, is brb3 the sole interpreter of Scripture?

And what makes you think it needs to be suported in Scripture? Does Scripture tell us that all Truth must be supported in Scripture?

And I don’t think Irenaeus or Justin Martyr taught something contradictory either. Is there something that makes you believe that all Truth must be spelled out explicitly by the ECF’s in order to be true?

The point is that the HS gave us the New Covenant testimonial …in the Catholic Canon … in late 200’s timeframes…more or less agreed upon by that time, but later officially declare for all time in 300’s. If Mary’s IC was so sacrosanct to their age & all ages to come … why didn’t our ECF’s include those writings on the matter in our Canon, if they indeed existed in 4th century ?

 

[brb3]

:

ouch: Thanks, but you didn’t really get my point: there is one sacred tradition which in turn is not divided at all but intrinsically united to sacred scripture to form one thing. There is absolutely no separation between “early” sacred tradition and “recent” sacred tradition! This is no “private revelation”, no modern Marian belief: this is official Catholic teaching that is now embedded into sacred tradition in an infallible way, just as if St. Peter himself had written it down.

Remember that there are quite a few things that the Holy Spirit has been revealing to the Church throughout the centuries. If we have issues today understanding Our Lady in God’s divine providence, how much more we would have had two thousand years ago, when people seemed even to struggle with the existence of the Holy Spirit and with the hypostatic union of Christ’s human and divine nature!

Unfortunately I am not that well-versed in the writings of the Church Fathers to know if they specifically mention immaculate conception, or at least the idea of immaculate conception…after all, we spoke of transmutation of the Holy Eucharist for a while, until we could (approximately) define it with better terms.

I found that Origen (Homily, AD 244) calls her:

and that Hippolytus (source) says in AD 235:

Finally (since we’re moving too far across the centuries, so somewhat stepping into “less valuable” tradition?) Ambrose of Milan, one of the four original Doctors of the Church, wrote in A.D. 387 (*Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 *):

There could be even earlier writings, of course. These are just a few I have been able to find. I know that later on, ex. 5th century Proclus of Constantinople writes very clearly (Homily 1):

and in the 6th century we find Romanus the Melodist referring to Our Lady in On the Birth of Mary as “the immaculate one”, showing that the idea was neither new nor strange or external to the Gospel, but, rather, well established in Christianity.

Remember that some concepts were not explicitly and formally defined unless there was a heresy that needed to be condemned. Thus, when the ancient Church Fathers speak of Mary as “sinless”, it was pretty much evident that they included the absence of Original Sin, which would only be possible if she had been conceived immaculate. There was no need to specifically state this out loud: sufficed to say that she was immaculate, that she was exempt from corruption.

Those ECF’S quotes are great, but u notice they all lack the words FROM BIRTH. If we could find JUST ONE, that supported her sinless status From Birth ( or from the womb) then her IC would be verified & w/o question !! And, all the protestants would convert back to the mother church.

 

[ahs]

The point is that the HS gave us the New Covenant testimonial …in the Catholic Canon … in late 200’s timeframes…more or less agreed upon by that time, but later officially declare for all time in 300’s. If Mary’s IC was so sacrosanct to their age & all ages to come … why didn’t our ECF’s include those writings on the matter in our Canon, if they indeed existed in 4th century ?

Why would the Church need to include such in the New Testament Canon? My guess is that it was such common knowledge that it didn’t need to be explicitly written out until many centuries later. But the main point is that all of our Christian Faith doesn’t need to written out explicitly in order for it to be true. Or do you suppose that it does?

While you may dimiss the quotes that were provided to you by R_C, they so suggest that Mary’s freedom from original sin, from birth, was no alien idealogy, at least to my understanding. Do you happen to have any source from the first centuries claiming otherwise?

 

[ahs]

Those ECF’S quotes are great, but u notice they all lack the words FROM BIRTH. I

Why do they need to say “from birth”? (I happen to believe that it is implied…but that’s probably not relevant.)
Was there any question raised about the matter in the early centuries that would necessitate such a clarification?

If we could find JUST ONE, that supported her sinless status From Birth ( or from the womb) then her IC would be verified…and, all the protestants would convert back to the mother church.

I seriously doubt that all Protestants would come flocking to the Church upon finding such a verification. I have pointed out to Protestants similar “evidence” from the ECF’s about Catholic teachings and they simply dismiss it on the basis that the Church “destroyed all historical documents that were contrary to Roman Catholicism” and other such rubbish.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Don’t u realize that fetus & mom share blood components!! Mom gives fetus necessary protective immune components!!! In point of fact …Mary had her BLOOD BAPTISM… from Christ within her womb !! That’s when MARY WAS CLEANSED of sins !!! She was Baptized before John started Baptizing the Apostles & all others.

That is NOT Scriptural and it has not been a Christian teaching. Where did you find it?>

 

[Tantum_ergo]

RC…

I don’t deny Mary’s sinless state, and most blessed SUPERSAINT STATUS. Nor do not see/appreciate her as Mother of the God-man Christ …and Spiritual mother of all Christians ( Catholics & Protestant).

But, I don’t see her taught / defined (in Sacred Scripture) as BORN sinless. I don’t see that in Luke’s account, or elsewhere in scripture. And, I don’t think Justin Martyr or Irenaeus believed/ taught this.

Nevertheless, I could be mistaken on those two saints …and please direct me to the early Church writings that support their beliefs on this matter…rather than the recent revelations on Mary.

Whatever the 1st -2nd Century Catholics believed … that I would find the Sine-Quo-Non of our faith, and bedrock dogma !!!

“Supersaint?”

Honey, if you want to be a 1st and 2nd century Catholic, you are out of luck. That ship has sailed. Only people who lived in the 1st and 2nd century were supposed to be 1st or 2nd century Catholics. Teachings are timeless, not bound to ‘1st and 2nd century’. And that belief of ‘sine qua none’ being ‘1st and 2nd century Catholics beliefs’ is itself not Scriptural.

 

[LilyM]

RC…

I don’t deny Mary’s sinless state, and most blessed SUPERSAINT STATUS. Nor do not see/appreciate her as Mother of the God-man Christ …and Spiritual mother of all Christians ( Catholics & Protestant).

But, I don’t see her taught / defined (in Sacred Scripture) as BORN sinless. I don’t see that in Luke’s account, or elsewhere in scripture. And, I don’t think Justin Martyr or Irenaeus believed/ taught this.

Nevertheless, I could be mistaken on those two saints …and please direct me to the early Church writings that support their beliefs on this matter…rather than the recent revelations on Mary.

Whatever the 1st -2nd Century Catholics believed … that I would find the Sine-Quo-Non of our faith, and bedrock dogma !!!

Let’s start from your premise that Mary only became immaculate once she had Christ within her womb. How is it then that the angel greets her as immaculate before she has even agreed to be His mother, let alone conceived Him? Clearly she was already immaculate prior to the point where she conceived Christ

 

[brb3]

Let’s start from your premise that Mary only became immaculate once she had Christ within her womb. How is it then that the angel greets her as immaculate before she has even agreed to be His mother, let alone conceived Him? Clearly she was already immaculate prior to the point where she conceived Christ

Good points Lily … U r sharp ! I must admit that scripture indicates she was fully graced PRIOR TO Christ’s miraculous conception within her womb. So, her Baptism FOLLOWED her receipt

 

[shreek]

Brb3 why don’t you just use common sense rather than scripture?
Would God, in his infinite wisdom, choose a sinful women to bear a sinless child, to make the word flesh?