Immaculate conceptions in the Bible, ...Mary?

[John_oxios]

Give us examples from Greek texts …of this word being used …to support ur claims above.

Hi BRB,

I ought not have to defend Church teaching nor doctines, of some two thousand years to A Catholic!

Or r u trying the Socratic approach?

Why is it you keep eva for Eve?

Where’s the Faith?

Jhn 20:29 "Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

No Mary… No Jesus

God bless,
John

 

[ConstantineTG]

This vid made me realize several things.

1. If woman ( Eva ) came from Adam, then Mary came from Christ. How could she not be FULLY GRACED, from her earliest conception ? It would seem her IC status is necessitated.

Church Fathers never taught this, although it sounds like a good idea, it would be nothing more than pious belief than Church Tradition.

Note though that the Immaculate Conception, as defined by the Catholic Church, does not say that Mary had to be immaculately conceived to bear Christ. Rather, being immaculately conceived is an effect of being set apart for this role. Actually the belief that Christ needs a pure and immaculate womb is Gnostic. Gnostics believe that everything in the flesh is evil and sinful, and thus Christ needs a pure womb. Rather, Mary is purified. Being the source of all goodness and all holiness, no amount of defilement can ever touch God. Darkness can never overcome light. And that is what that Mary is grace-filled not as a pre-requisite, but as an effect.

1. If Christ birthed the extraordinary John the Baptizer by miraculously means, filling him with HS In-the-womb …to prepare a people/ nation, announce the Christ, and Baptize him ------- then, would he not also prepare Mary by similar miraculous means, IC no doubt, to bring him into world & raise him to adulthood ?

No. The IC has nothing to do with Mary’s mothering skills, nor does an infinitely wise and knowledgeable God needs to be raised to adulthood. Clearly in the Finding in the Temple, we see that Christ already possessed the knowledge and wisdom of an adult even at such a young age.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The problem here is you are equating the quote from an Eastern Father to Latin teaching. The meaning of “stain” does not equate to “Original Sin”. This is a problem of prooftexting.

Right, your proof-texting is off.

google.com/url?q=http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/03/immaculate-conception.html&sa=U&ei=59-BT97cMsbB0QGH79j-Bw&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=yYKG5QdQ_0bMWVk9PG2ymg&usg=AFQjCNFXbBesRSVK1Ca6ox_gBtuVZffY_w

No Spot, No Stain=Immaculate. I don’t have to equate it to anything the dictionary does that for you.

Hows the text proofing on these?

google.com/url?q=http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm&sa=U&ei=FOEJT9mnCqL10gHl0-SgAg&ved=0CCMQFjAG&sig2=FhUcf4VybtUOX2yHl6TjMw&usg=AFQjCNHVKTw43TMuPK7TbPFEAAsllWpA3g

 

[GaryTaylor]

a pre-requisite, but as an effect.

You don’t know this, the predestined state may well have been a pre-requisite to create the effect. its speculation in other words. Mary was preserved but one of three ways. The IC is the most fitting. No-one to date has come along with a better argument than Bl Duns Scotus, still waiting to hear it, I don’t believe it exists

Also the verse which has Christ teaching in the temple doesn’t distract from His humanity which would be gnostic also.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Have u researched his arguments to the contrary ? It would make for a most insightful interesting read. I’m starting my search tonite. Hopefully his case was recorded in writing …and reviewable.

Him and Bernard of Clairvaux both, especially St Bernard continued a deep respect and veneration for Mary. Sin was the issue they couldn’t resolve.

ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/the-immaculate-conception-st.-thomas-and-st.-bernard

Duns Scotus is who you should compare, his work took the theology to another level still comtemplated…SAINT!!!

christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/scotus&immac.htm

The idea that many Saints disputed various theological ideas as they developed is pretty common through the centuries, Cyprian and Augustine come to mind off the top of my head. Yet no-one would argue their reality in Christianity. All just amazing soldiers in Christs Kingdom.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Scripture is linked to the Ark in exegesis. There’s much to consider Biblically Genesis through Revelation.

 

[John_oxios]

Church Fathers never taught this, although it sounds like a good idea, it would be nothing more than pious belief than Church Tradition.

Note though that the Immaculate Conception, as defined by the Catholic Church, does not say that Mary had to be immaculately conceived to bear Christ. Rather, being immaculately conceived is an effect of being set apart for this role. Actually the belief that Christ needs a pure and immaculate womb is Gnostic. Gnostics believe that everything in the flesh is evil and sinful, and thus Christ needs a pure womb. ** Rather, Mary is purified. Being the source of all goodness and all holiness, no amount of defilement can ever touch God. Darkness can never overcome light. And that is what that Mary is grace-filled not as a pre-requisite, but as an effect**.

.

Hi,
I may have read this wrong at first but went over it again,

It’s not that it had to be an Immaculate womb, Is that God and sin presiding in the same place? Life is in the Blood, Christ taking humanity would have also had to take on the First Adams sinful nature/state passed through the genes or the Blood.
Sacrifices under the law had to be pure, spotless anything less was turned away.
Christ the sacrificial Lamb had to have pure and spotless beginning in His human nature to be an accepted Sacrifice for all mankind.

Bishop Fulton Sheen stated it like this, (paraphrased) “God wrote a great symphony in which Adam and Eve played a sour note, and that note went out into Eternity. Christ came out of Eternity to begin a New Symphony…” (which not even humanity could not spoil).

[Judaism believed that once we utter a word not even God could call it back, So Adam and Eve’s no to God’s command could not be recalled.]

In the Beginning there is man and woman and a tree, and God used these same three to overturn the sin in the garden. A man Christ, a woman Mary, and a tree (The Cross) which Jesus hung from.

God bless,
John

 

[GaryTaylor]

In the Beginning there is man and woman and a tree, and God used these same three to overturn the sin in the garden. A man Christ, a woman Mary, and a tree (The Cross) which Jesus hung from.

God bless,
John

Right and Biblically speaking Revelation 12 would be todays concern. There’s a continued balance, though a zig-zag line when man goes astray, the Lord corrects or sends someone to correct the error. In this case Himself with redemption. The Living God. This is the same analogy we spoke of on the other thread. The purification of Gold my brother. The IC relates from its theology through the Ark and its purity that the Lord indicated. Basically were talking the divinization process in the Sonship, thus brothers with Christ. Sons and daughters of Mary and the First Person Trinity the Father.

 

[John_oxios]

Give us examples from Greek texts …of this word being used …to support ur claims above.

Here Ask and apologist;

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=736224&highlight=kecharitomene

Fr, Charles Grondin

here on Catholic Answers.

forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4

I’m no expert, but I trust authorities in the Church, especially when you can get 500 to 800 Bishops to agree on a Doctrine.

And if I did, do you have any expertise in Ancient Greek languages, No!

So you’d also have to have faith in the translators translation, I place that faith in those from the Catholic Faith.

God bless,
John

 

[brb3]

If Eve came from Adam’s rib, then Mary came from Christ’s side as well.
Thus, scripture fullfilled about her heart being pierced…when spear entered Christ’s side on cross.

 

[brb3]

Here Ask and apologist;

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=736224&highlight=kecharitomene

Fr, Charles Grodin

defines words for us, but doesn’t show prior use of this word in a sentence…to allow context to be examined.

Perhaps, this word was never used before. Or at least it doesn’t exist in extant Greek texts …to allow comparisons.

 

[brb3]

Him and Bernard of Clairvaux both, especially St Bernard continued a deep respect and veneration for Mary. Sin was the issue they couldn’t resolve.

ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/the-immaculate-conception-st.-thomas-and-st.-bernard

Duns Scotus is who you should compare, his work took the theology to another level still comtemplated…SAINT!!!

christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/scotus&immac.htm

The idea that many Saints disputed various theological ideas as they developed is pretty common through the centuries, Cyprian and Augustine come to mind off the top of my head. Yet no-one would argue their reality in Christianity. All just amazing soldiers in Christs Kingdom.

Gary Taylor –

You have given us the key links here. Thanks !

It is clear that before Scotus (late 1200’s), that the ECF’s did not (in the main) accept IC of Mary.

They held a common Protestant viewpoint of today ( that she was fully graced at some point in time AFTER her conception, but before Gabriel’s announcement to her.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Right, your proof-texting is off.

google.com/url?q=http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/03/immaculate-conception.html&sa=U&ei=59-BT97cMsbB0QGH79j-Bw&ved=0CBAQFjAA&sig2=yYKG5QdQ_0bMWVk9PG2ymg&usg=AFQjCNFXbBesRSVK1Ca6ox_gBtuVZffY_w

No Spot, No Stain=Immaculate. I don’t have to equate it to anything the dictionary does that for you.

Hows the text proofing on these?

google.com/url?q=http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm&sa=U&ei=FOEJT9mnCqL10gHl0-SgAg&ved=0CCMQFjAG&sig2=FhUcf4VybtUOX2yHl6TjMw&usg=AFQjCNHVKTw43TMuPK7TbPFEAAsllWpA3g

I am talking about the stain of Original Sin, which does not exist in the mind of the Eastern Fathers. While we do profess Mary to be immaculate, ie. blameless, it is not in the same sense as the West regard her to be immaculate. We don’t believe there is anything to excuse her from at her conception, it is enough that she did not commit a personal fault throughout her life.

You don’t know this, the predestined state may well have been a pre-requisite to create the effect. its speculation in other words. Mary was preserved but one of three ways. The IC is the most fitting. No-one to date has come along with a better argument than Bl Duns Scotus, still waiting to hear it, I don’t believe it exists

Also the verse which has Christ teaching in the temple doesn’t distract from His humanity which would be gnostic also.

It is consistent with the teaching of the Fathers. God sanctifies, the mere presence of God defeats all darkness. The fact that God was to enter her womb and become incarnate there is the reason she is sanctified. It is not a pre-requisite for God, God can never be stained. So it is false to think that God needs an immaculate womb. The womb became immaculate because God has intended it for His use.

 

[John_oxios]

defines words for us, but doesn’t show prior use of this word in a sentence…to allow context to be examined.

Perhaps, this word was never used before. Or at least it doesn’t exist in extant Greek texts …to allow comparisons.

So ya think they made it up? C’mon. You dismiss & reason away too easily!

The Church

Blue letter bible, concordance:

blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=1&v=38&t=KJV#conc/28

charitoō

1. to make graceful
   a) charming, lovely, agreeable
2. to peruse with grace, compass with favour
3. to honor with blesings

charis

Strong’s G5485

1. grace
   a) that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm, loveliness: grace of speech
2. good will, loving-kindness, favour
   a) of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues
3. what is due to grace

from root word : chairō Strong’s G5463 -

1. to rejoice, be glad
2. to rejoice exceedingly
3. to be well, thrive
4. in salutations, hail!
5. at the beginning of letters: to give one greeting, salutea) the spiritual condition of one governed by the power of divine grace
   b) the token or proof of grace, benefit
6. a gift of grace
7. benefit, bounty
8. thanks, (for benefits, services, fav

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/07/luke-128-full-of-grace-immaculate.html

The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28)philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm

excerpt:
There are seven tenses of the Greek verb. They are: the Aorist, Present, Imperfect, Future, Pluperfect, and Future Perfect. Let us exemplify the Perfect and Present tenses. In the words of the Greek grammarian J. Gresham Machen, ‘The Greek perfect tense denotes the present state resultant upon a past action’ (New Testament Greek for Beginners, p. 187). The perfect is used in Matthew 4:4,7,10 (‘it is written’). Literally translated, ‘It has been written in the past and is still in force.’ Hence, Jesus expresses the continuing authority of God’s written law by using the perfect tense." (“How About the Greek Language?” from BibleQuestions.org)

“…Ephesians 2:8, ‘For by grace are you saved through faith…’ The word ‘saved’ is translated from the Greek word sesosmenoi, which is a perfect passive participle. It means that this salvation took place at some point in the past and is continuing on in the present…” (“The Lord is not Slack Concerning His Promise” from CephasMinistry.com)

In** other words, the perfect tense in Greek is a past tense with a special meaning: it is used to refer to a past action which has effects felt in the present.** So, here’s what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us “Kecharitomene” denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:

" ‘Highly favoured’ (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’ " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means “he graced” (or bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).

And our friend’s citation of what the term denotes:

“…to bestow grace, to show favor to someone…the divine favor for a special vocation…” (Fritz Rienecker/Cleon Rogers in their Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament)

Ironically, that final definition is essentially coextensive with the Catholic understanding of the why of Mary’s sinlessness –

Luke 1:28 in the Greek:

καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν, Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.

A Catholic Answers Tract

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3.htm

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi,
I may have read this wrong at first but went over it again,

It’s not that it had to be an Immaculate womb, Is that God and sin presiding in the same place? Life is in the Blood, Christ taking humanity would have also had to take on the First Adams sinful nature/state passed through the genes or the Blood.
Sacrifices under the law had to be pure, spotless anything less was turned away.
Christ the sacrificial Lamb had to have pure and spotless beginning in His human nature to be an accepted Sacrifice for all mankind.

Bishop Fulton Sheen stated it like this, (paraphrased) “God wrote a great symphony in which Adam and Eve played a sour note, and that note went out into Eternity. Christ came out of Eternity to begin a New Symphony…” (which not even humanity could not spoil).

[Judaism believed that once we utter a word not even God could call it back, So Adam and Eve’s no to God’s command could not be recalled.]

In the Beginning there is man and woman and a tree, and God used these same three to overturn the sin in the garden. A man Christ, a woman Mary, and a tree (The Cross) which Jesus hung from.

God bless,
John

As St. Maximos the Confessor taught, what is assumed is saved. Thus Jesus did assume a fallen human nature, but that once he assumed it, it was instantly sanctified and blessed and perfected by His divine nature. This is why in the East we believe the path to heaven is Theosis. The whole reason God became man is so that our fallen nature will be perfected when communed with God’s perfect divine nature. That is the whole point we receive the Eucharist, that is why we call it Communion. When we receive the fullness of Christ, his perfect humanity and divinity, we too are thus perfected.

This message is repeated in the Feast of the Theophany we celebrate in the East (as opposed to the Epiphany). As Christ is baptized in the Jordan, it is not Christ who is being sanctified by baptism, it is Christ sanctifying creation through his baptism. When Christ went into the water, the water then became a vessel of God’s sanctifying grace throughout the world and thus all of creation is redeemed. Remember in Genesis, all of creation suffered because of Adam’s sin.

 

[GaryTaylor]

They held a common Protestant viewpoint of today ( that she was fully graced at some point in time AFTER her conception, but before Gabriel’s announcement to her.

Its a on-going theology always in the now. I would have to assume it always has been if we reflect on the past. No different than the other mysteries of the Bible.

Scholasticism prevailed through these centuries, no different with St Thomas or Bl Duns Scotus.

The common misunderstanding is that Original Sin with sin is the focus of the issue. Original nor Ancestral sin are the issue. The issue is the primary effect of mans fractured state, which is death. We know from Christs redemption, we overcome an inevitable eternal death by Baptism, then by overcoming an inevitable secondary effect with the inclination to sin. With the virtue comes a real responsibility.

The issue then becomes how did Jesus Christ being fully human/Divine pass through Mary without effect. Jesus had no inclination to sin, nor can we assume He has to die, He chose to die, we do not know that Mary had this either, nor do we know that Mary was predestined to death through mans fractured state. We do know She is the Mother of God. Safe to say God trusted Mary enough to place Jesus in Her hands. As much as we would like to say Jesus was brilliant at 12, he was also a very real baby at 2-3-4-5. I say he knew more about Mary than we do, since this world He chose, was in fact Marys reality in life. Mary became His world and to date there is no other, your always a child to your parents.

If we can say Mary was predestined to death, which we indeed do not know, why can’t we suggest She was in fact predestined from all Eternity to be "Immaculate, thus No Spot or No Stain, thus no effect of the fall but a “push the restore” button by God through Adam/Eves disobedience? Mary was chosen, Her obedience from youth is known. Her fiat became the only confirmation needed in Gods plan, He knew this also, for “one”, chosen in time like this didn’t occur without conscious thought, intelligence.

I see no reason the inclination to sin inhabited Mary, in fact as usual it would have produced its own fruit in vice/habit as will “all” humans, while completely human and no doubt Blessed, I can’t find the verse where Mary was subjected to this inclination. Mary wasn’t as Blessed in many ways as other Saints. But in this all critical area I believe She was. Divine providence in the Bible threads its entire context. Why wouldn’t this be possible with the Mother of God?

The teachings originate from the East with St Anne and Marys birth with Tradition. So too we have St Anne with divine intervention. When was John the Baptist preserved?

Right though logically it must be 1 or 3 ways from the Annunciation, prior, or at Conception. Which is most fitting? Why do the early church fathers compare Mary with Eve? And why is it Mary can’t be the new Eve?

 

[Cranch]

Note though that the Immaculate Conception, as defined by the Catholic Church, does not say that Mary had to be immaculately conceived to bear Christ. Rather, being immaculately conceived is an effect of being set apart for this role. Actually the belief that Christ needs a pure and immaculate womb is Gnostic. Gnostics believe that everything in the flesh is evil and sinful, and thus Christ needs a pure womb. Rather, Mary is purified. Being the source of all goodness and all holiness, no amount of defilement can ever touch God. Darkness can never overcome light. And that is what that Mary is grace-filled not as a pre-requisite, but as an effect.

It seems to me the Immaculate Conception was not simply a result ipso facto of God’s decision to choose Mary as the mother of the savior. In order to be “set apart for this role” and because “no amount of defilement can ever touch God,” Mary, who as a human would otherwise have been subject to original sin, “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.” (Ineffabilis Deus) For me, this doctrinal definition implies a direct action of will by the Father, not merely an effect. Mary HAD to be conceived immaculate in order to keep the stain of Adam’s sin from Jesus who though God, was born a man. The mystery of how this was accomplished was at the core of understanding this doctrine for centuries. The Church understood Mary’s need for redemption in order to be the Mother of God. It also understood redemption is only through Christ. The Immaculate Conception would not have been the controversy it was if all that needed to be said was sin is incompatible with God.

God did not need to enter the world in the way that He did. He could have chosen another way if He deemed it more fitting. But because he chose to be born of a woman, the ramifications of the Incarnation are no less real. Yes “darkness can never overcome light,” but I believe there is a Divine logic involved here as elsewhere, for example in the necessity of Purgatory or in Christ’s own sacrifice.

 

[brb3]

I do see one problem with Mary’s believed IC. If she was absolutely preserved from ALL SIN …then she would of been eternal & not subject to aging or death … ie, enjoying an Eve status …before sin brought death to Eve.

Yet, we know Mary aged.

 

[ahs]

I do see one problem with Mary’s believed IC. If she was absolutely preserved from ALL SIN …then she would of been eternal & not subject to aging or death … ie, enjoying an Eve status …before sin brought death to Eve.

Yet, we know Mary aged.

No, Mary was a physical part of this world…within “time”. Being free from sin would not have affected aging…the passage of time. Christ also aged while He was here, no?

 

[ConstantineTG]

It seems to me the Immaculate Conception was not simply a result ipso facto of God’s decision to choose Mary as the mother of the savior. In order to be “set apart for this role” and because “no amount of defilement can ever touch God,” Mary, who as a human would otherwise have been subject to original sin, “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.” (Ineffabilis Deus) For me, this doctrinal definition implies a direct action of will by the Father, not merely an effect. Mary HAD to be conceived immaculate in order to keep the stain of Adam’s sin from Jesus who though God, was born a man. The mystery of how this was accomplished was at the core of understanding this doctrine for centuries. The Church understood Mary’s need for redemption in order to be the Mother of God. It also understood redemption is only through Christ. The Immaculate Conception would not have been the controversy it was if all that needed to be said was sin is incompatible with God.

God did not need to enter the world in the way that He did. He could have chosen another way if He deemed it more fitting. But because he chose to be born of a woman, the ramifications of the Incarnation are no less real. Yes “darkness can never overcome light,” but I believe there is a Divine logic involved here as elsewhere, for example in the necessity of Purgatory or in Christ’s own sacrifice.

God’s intention to call Mary to be the Theotokos is God’s action. You seem to be implying that God needs to act in a way a human being acts for it to be called “God’s act”. It is not quite the same with and infinite and all-powerful God. Remember, He merely spoke words that brought the entire universe into existence. This is why the Eucharist is a Memorial, a Remembrance. To people, a remembrance is just an image in our mind. When we call God to remembrance, God acts. This is why the thief on the cross simply asked Jesus to remember him and Jesus guaranteed his salvation.

So yes, for God to even just think about calling Mary to be the Theotokos from the point in time her soul was created by Him is an active work of God that has granted her the graces.