Interesting Comments re: Mary, Grace, & the Immaculate Conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter ESMDHokie77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ESMDHokie77

Guest
Hey CAF,

I am in current e-mail exchanges with a dear friend of mine who happens to be Protestant. The exchange has been cordial and detailed for a few back and forths so far, but I’ve been interested in the following comments, and your comments on how I did replying. Their words are in the quotes, mine are in the plain text.

On the exact specifics of “How” Mary doesn’t have original sin, we’ll probably only know when we get to heaven. The Church chose not to define every minute detail in this belief, and just like the exact details on how the Trinity works, is a mystery to us. “The Lord works in mysterious ways”, but we do know that it was through Jesus that Mary was saved from sin at her conception. As to why God chose to save her from sin, Jesus was the perfect man; He obeyed the Ten Commandments perfectly and thus He honored his mother and Father. Who wouldn’t want to protect their parents from sin, (though we are powerless to do so)? Jesus wanted to, and He had the power to.

Picture that you and I are walking through the woods, side by side. One scenario is that you miss a step and then you fall down into a mud pit and I lift you out of it after you get muddy. Another scenario is that when you miss a step I catch you and you don’t fall down into a mud pit and stay clean. That’s Mary’s Immaculate Conception, she never fell into the mud pit, but she still needed saving.

I think it’s important to remember that we were made in the intent of being free from sin. Adam’s fault has wounded our human nature and thus we can’t be as we were meant to be until we’re in heaven and totally free from sin once there. Jesus, of course, was fully human and his human nature was not damaged by sin. Sinless human nature is the same kind that we were meant to have and will have in heaven.

If Mary can be likened to the New Eve, in that they both were created without the stain of sin. Eve was created without sin, but chose to sin, and we can contrast this to Mary’s sinless conception and her choosing to obey God and be united to His will.

I am a bit perplexed by their following comments:
On Grace, remember that Sin did not exist until Eve and Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Adam and Eve were created in a state of holiness like you say, because Sin did not exist. Also, God cannot be in the same place that sin is. Don’t jump to a conclusion that what I’m saying is God is not present everywhere because he is omnipresent. What I mean is that while being omnipresent, God cannot exist where sin is. It pains him and reminds him of our daily choices to put other things above him. I guess technically Holiness existed and then Sin and then Grace… I mean who knows.
Click to expand...
I’m a bit confused about this “grace paragraph”. Human sin didn’t exist yet but satan and his devils were already cast out of heaven for their sin. I’m not sure I agree with this comment about God’s inability to be where sin is present.

They also commented on CCC 488, for reference CCC 488 says:
488 “God sent forth his Son”, but to prepare a body for him,125 he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary”
Click to expand...
Their comment was:
Why is Mary, a woman, called a creature? More-over, why is the choice that God made to pick Mary called “free co-operation”? Really? “To prepare a body for him” … the whole way it is written is soulless.
Click to expand...
I think the “free co-operation” of Mary refer’s to God wanting Mary to freely choose to be the Mother of God, Mary assented in verse 38, she exercised her free will. Her human will was not in discord with God’s will. What is the “Really?” in reference to?
 
part 2…

On the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, their comments were:
If this is what Martin Luther believed, then why wasn’t it “proclaimed” until 1854? The feast of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated in 1854. I can’t help but think that my great grandparents were alive when this was “proclaimed.” The Reformation happened in the 16th Century… I don’t know what to think when I read things like that…
Click to expand...
In 1854 the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception became a dogma. We all believe in certain doctrines. The Catholic Church only elevates doctrines to the dogmatic level in certain circumstances. This is related to the “development of doctrine” and examples of this are: the Trinity, Mary’s sinlessness, etc; note that development of doctrine takes place, but not reversal of belief. In biblical terms, the Jews didn’t immediately have the temple or the kingdom of Israel and the OT documents the steady stream of prophets proclaiming The Messiah. Things have been revealed to God’s people gradually over time. This belief in particular has been taught by theologians, and spoken of in historic church documents.

Dogma can only defined by a synod of bishops or the pope. The date of definition of a dogma is not equitable to the date of so-called “invention” or earliest documented beginning of a belief. The faith was delivered to the apostles “once and for all”, but our understanding of the faith can grow and deepen, see CCC94. For example, under the duress of controversy the dogma of Christ’s two natures (human and divine) being united in 1 person (Jesus) was defined in part at the council of Chalcedon in 451. Also, the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, its first documented use is in the year 170, and the first documented explanation is dated in the ~3rd century; but that’s not to say that before the year 170 or the 3rd century that no one believed in the Trinity. Dogma is defined when either a belief is under controversy, or when judged worthy of belief. Belief in the divinity of Christ, his singular personhood and 2 natures, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity were all doctrines that were threatened by early heresies denying their truths and thus synods were convened to declare their solemn truth by making them dogma.

It is the Catholic position that this belief existed from the very start of the Christian Era. So not only did Luther and Zwingli ( a Reformed founder) believe in the Immaculate Conception, but so did Theodotus of Ancrya (5th century), Ambrose (4th century), Origen (3rd century), Irenaeus (2nd century), and beyond, (just a few choice examples of the many early Christians who I found quotes related). We can see that this belief can be traced back through history. The feast day has its roots as early as 5th century Syria. Why do you bring up the Reformation?

Anywho, glad you would like to know more about Mary! Everything the Catholic Church teaches about her is Christocentric. After all, at the wedding in Cana she says “Do whatever He tells you.”, and in Luke 1:46 she says “my soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord”.
Anyway CAF, thanks for reading this and I would appreciate any constructive criticism of my side of the discussion and any other thoughts or comments.

Peace,
Phil
 
Mary, and all of us, are CREATures because we are CREATed.
On the quote by Martin Luther/objection to the 1854 dogma,I think a simple little
phrase to keep in mind is “dogma is not defined until it is defied.” We can look back in time much farther than Martin Luther to see that yes, they did believe Mary was both ever-virgin and free of original sin well before either was defined. The nature of Jesus was not defined until 325 at the council of Nicea, if I’m remembering correctly. Why? Because that’s when the church made up this new thinking? Of course not, but because there were heresies, notably the Arians, denying his divinity, and it was important to have an official, carefully worded position.
 
I’d use this

Given that all Christians agree with regard to how one inherits one’s parents’ fallen nature, and given that Christ did not have a fallen nature even though He was fully human (as well as being fully divine) – having acquired human flesh and a human nature from Mary – then it naturally follows that an intervention from the Holy Spirit would have had to occur somewhere along the line or else Jesus would have inherited a fallen nature.

Scenario #1 is that Christ – our Redeemer and Savior – inherited from His mother a pristine human nature which was not fallen.* Her nature was “saved” from fallen-ness prior to Christ’s conception.* In this scenario it is Mary who is the object of prior salvation.* This is the Catholic view.

Scenario #2 is that Mary was fallen at the time of Christ’s conception, but that Christ was prevented from (i.e., “saved” from) inheriting her fallen-ness through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.* In this scenario it is Christ who is the object of the immediate saving work of the Spirit.* This is the Protestant view even if few Protestants ever think of it in these terms.

In both scenarios we have the necessity of a “saving” intervention by the Holy Spirit.

But, in Scenario #2 we can see a great difficulty arising.* Why?* Because for Jesus to have been “saved” from inheriting Original Sin that means that Our Savior would have needed a savior AND Our Redeemer would have needed a redeemer and THAT is something that Scripture never points to and that, in reality, is an utter impossibility.* For Christ Himself is “THE SAVIOR” and He is “THE REDEEMER”.

Here the hard-core Fundamentalist who requires an explicit Biblical mandate is at total loss when asked to supply the slightest Scriptural reference to Jesus needing to be saved or redeemed at any time during the Incarnated earthly life of the Messiah.

Get the whole article here catholic-legate.com/Apologeti…fulBridge.aspx
 
Odell said:
I’d use this

Given that all Christians agree with regard to how one inherits one’s parents’ fallen nature, and given that Christ did not have a fallen nature even though He was fully human (as well as being fully divine) – having acquired human flesh and a human nature from Mary – then it naturally follows that an intervention from the Holy Spirit would have had to occur somewhere along the line or else Jesus would have inherited a fallen nature.

Scenario #1 is that Christ – our Redeemer and Savior – inherited from His mother a pristine human nature which was not fallen.* Her nature was “saved” from fallen-ness prior to Christ’s conception.* In this scenario it is Mary who is the object of prior salvation.* This is the Catholic view.

Scenario #2 is that Mary was fallen at the time of Christ’s conception, but that Christ was prevented from (i.e., “saved” from) inheriting her fallen-ness through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.* In this scenario it is Christ who is the object of the immediate saving work of the Spirit.* This is the Protestant view even if few Protestants ever think of it in these terms.

In both scenarios we have the necessity of a “saving” intervention by the Holy Spirit.

But, in Scenario #2 we can see a great difficulty arising.* Why?* Because for Jesus to have been “saved” from inheriting Original Sin that means that Our Savior would have needed a savior AND Our Redeemer would have needed a redeemer and THAT is something that Scripture never points to and that, in reality, is an utter impossibility.* For Christ Himself is “THE SAVIOR” and He is “THE REDEEMER”.

Here the hard-core Fundamentalist who requires an explicit Biblical mandate is at total loss when asked to supply the slightest Scriptural reference to Jesus needing to be saved or redeemed at any time during the Incarnated earthly life of the Messiah.

Get the whole article here catholic-legate.com/Apologeti…fulBridge.aspx
Click to expand...
Scenario #3 is that Mary is not the genetic mother of Christ, that the Holy Spirit implanted the baby Jesus in Mary’s womb as a genetically complete embryo. Jesus could not be the genetic son of Mary because if He were, He would have inherited Mary’s sin nature. Mary of course was not free from sin and therefore she could not have been the mother of a child free of sin.

Those of you who read this, don’t try to debate me on this because I don’t believe it, but I know this view is held by a large number of evangelicals and by most fundamentalists.
 
Zenas said:
Scenario #3 is that Mary is not the genetic mother of Christ, that the Holy Spirit implanted the baby Jesus in Mary’s womb as a genetically complete embryo. Jesus could not be the genetic son of Mary because if He were, He would have inherited Mary’s sin nature. Mary of course was not free from sin and therefore she could not have been the mother of a child free of sin.

Those of you who read this, don’t try to debate me on this because I don’t believe it, but I know this view is held by a large number of evangelicals and by most fundamentalists.
Click to expand...
I actually don’t know how I would respond to it? Other than its silly. I will see what I can do:)
 
C-Dude and Odell thanks for the responses.

Zenas, nice “incubator” belief… very loving. Except your belief doesn’t really make Mary the Mother of Jesus now does it? in Luke 1:43, Elizabeth calls Mary the “mother of my Lord”. Mary gave birth to the Person of Jesus. He is fully human. So fully human, that He is as we were meant to be (as we were before the fall), sinless.

As it is even if Mary is only an incubator, she’s still bearing God, carrying Him. I don’t suppose you would agree with her title, “Ark of the New Covenant”?

And sorry, yes we will debate you! Why does it matter that a “large number” of fundamentalists believe what you stated here? Is truth governed by popular vote? Can truth change/reverse?

Phil
 
ESMDHokie77 said:
C-Dude and Odell thanks for the responses.

Zenas, nice “incubator” belief… very loving. Except your belief doesn’t really make Mary the Mother of Jesus now does it? in Luke 1:43, Elizabeth calls Mary the “mother of my Lord”. Mary gave birth to the Person of Jesus. He is fully human. So fully human, that He is as we were meant to be (as we were before the fall), sinless.

As it is even if Mary is only an incubator, she’s still bearing God, carrying Him. I don’t suppose you would agree with her title, “Ark of the New Covenant”?

And sorry, yes we will debate you! Why does it matter that a “large number” of fundamentalists believe what you stated here? Is truth governed by popular vote? Can truth change/reverse?

Phil
Click to expand...
I believe Zenies was playing the devils advocate. I’m sure he dosnt mind it being debated but that he personaly isn’t going to debate from that stand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top