Mary, the Immaculate Conception etc

[linus]

Sarah Jane:

If you don’t want to trust the Church’s teaching, it is your choice but to claim that we are not honest is not very respectful for us. :nope:

So you admit that the I.C. is the church’s teaching, not found in the Bible itself. I am not calling you a liar, in fact I agree. The doctrine is not a Biblical revelation and therefore must be accepted on the authority of men only. Based on their “reasoning,” not divine revelation. But I contend that such a doctrine could only be known by divine REVELATION, not human reasoning.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

linus:

So you admit that the I.C. is the church’s teaching, not found in the Bible itself. I am not calling you a liar, in fact I agree. The doctrine is not a Biblical revelation and therefore must be accepted on the authority of men only. Based on their “reasoning,” not divine revelation. But I contend that such a doctrine could only be known by divine REVELATION, not human reasoning.

No, I admit nothing!

For me, this Church’s teaching is found implicitly in the Bible.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

linus:

Toby, the most well known teachers of the Latin church such as Augustine, Anselm, Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas, held that if the virgin Mary were not a partaker of the sin and apostasy of man, she could not be a partaker of redemption. .

“Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?” (St. Augustine, Nature and Grace)

"I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: ‘(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.’ Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30,31): ‘Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,’ etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: ‘The glory of children are their fathers’: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother’s shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): ‘What concord hath Christ with Belial?’ Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the ‘Divine Wisdom’ (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): ‘Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.’

We must therefore confess simply that theBlessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: ‘Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee’ " (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae)

The Immaculate Conception doesn’t mean that Mary didn’t need a Savior. Mary was redeemed by the grace of Christ, but by anticipation.

 

[DianJo]

Ya know, this has been real interesting BUT…

Can we get this back on track for this poor child who originally asked a question of us. So far, we have essentially ignored her request for help in her Religious Education class and are debating a so-called catholic who chooses not to hold to the teachings of the Catholic Church!

Can we give her some meat for her class? She’s up against some non-catholics in her class - or even some so-called catholics like we have here. It might be just a little difficult for her to sift through all this debate stuff to pick out what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the Immaculate Conception.

Can we put it in simpler form for her?

 

[TobyLue]

Linus

Many things are implicitly or explicitly in scripture. You want something explicit but you didn’t prove to me that the Canon of scripture is explicitly written in scripture. Who declared the Canon in Scripture? Show me explicitly where “trinity” is found. You say it’s understood, well by the same token the Church understands the IC through scripture. You are very ignorant of how dogmas are declared. It was not the opinion of one man. That is utterly ridiculous. If you already read the other links that I provided, then nothing I say will convince you. Nothing you say will convince me otherwise too. Go back and read post number 5…

To echo what Mary Jane said “
For me, this Church’s teaching is found implicitly in the Bible.” You are left to your own interpretation.

Bye and God Bless…

To DianJo

Ya know, this has been real interesting BUT…

Can we get this back on track for this poor child who originally asked a question of us. So far, we have essentially ignored her request for help in her Religious Education class and are debating a so-called catholic who chooses not to hold to the teachings of the Catholic Church!

Can we give her some meat for her class? She’s up against some non-catholics in her class - or even some so-called catholics like we have here. It might be just a little difficult for her to sift through all this debate stuff to pick out what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the Immaculate Conception.

Can we put it in simpler form for her?

I agree… Posts 2, 4 & 5 were excellent…

 

[Swiss_Guard]

linus:

You’re so anxious to “guard” your doctrine that the issue here flies over your head. I never said “nobody interprets “full of grace” as immaculately conceived” (obviously all of Catholicism does) but that you cannot derive that interpretation from the text, or the context of Lk. 1:28. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is poured into the word “kacharitomene,” it is impossible to construe that doctrine from the word itself. The only way you could is if Gabriel went on to explain to Mary that he greeted her in such a manner because she was “immaculately conceived.” But, of course, he does not. Check out the context: In Lk. 1:28 Gabriel greets Mary as one “highly favored.” In Lk. 1:30 he explains, “Do not be afraid, MARY (he does not call her “Full of Grace”) for you have found FAVOR with God.” He then goes on to tell her the event that will take place as a result of her highly favored position: she will conceive by the Holy Spirit and give birth to the Messiah. The narrative suggests nothing concerning Mary’s own conception.

The original question posed by “poppiedancer” was, in reference to the doctrine of the IC of Mary:* “How can I defend it? Is it in the Bible about Mary being without original sin???”*

People on this thread were pointing to Lk. 1:28 as Biblical evidence. But Lk. 1:28, and its context, state nothing about Mary’s conception. The doctrine must be poured INTO the Greek word by an outside source - not derived from it. It is based totally on the reasoning of men, not on an exegetical study of God’s written Word. It you believe it, you must believe it based on the subjective reasoning of men - not Biblical revelation.

OK, I misread what you originally posted. You’re right, you didn’t say nobody interprets “full of grace” as immaculately conceived. However, explain to me why NOBODY used YOUR exegetical study of Luke 1:28 for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

---

It is not “my doctrine” (it’s the Church’s doctrine, not mine personally) that is the subjective reasoning of men, but rather YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION, an interpretation that didn’t exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity, that is the subjective reasoning of men.

---

"Kacharitomene" has already been explained ad nauseam. This title is given only to the Blessed Virgin Mary. You want to believe it’s impossible to know that this means “full of grace” because then you have to admit the Church is right and you’re wrong. I find it hard to believe how Protestantism, which didn’t exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity, all of a sudden knows infallibly how to interpret the Bible. I guess the apostles and those who followed them had things all wrong. It took guys like Calvin and Zwingli to set us straight. Give me a break!

 

[linus]

DianJo:

Ya know, this has been real interesting BUT…

Can we get this back on track for this poor child who originally asked a question of us. So far, we have essentially ignored her request for help in her Religious Education class and are debating a so-called catholic who chooses not to hold to the teachings of the Catholic Church!

Can we give her some meat for her class? She’s up against some non-catholics in her class - or even some so-called catholics like we have here. It might be just a little difficult for her to sift through all this debate stuff to pick out what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the Immaculate Conception.

Can we put it in simpler form for her?

Her question was where in the Bible the I.C. is taught. Her problem is not against non-catholics but the fact that the Bible just doesn’t teach it. There’s plenty of material out there on the teaching of the Catholic church on this topic, but nothing in the Bible itself. Her only real defense with non-catholics is she believes it because her church teaches it. It’s really quite that simple. But as she can see by what has been presented on this thread, she cannot appeal to the Bible itself for support.

 

[linus]

Sarah Jane:

The Immaculate Conception doesn’t mean that Mary didn’t need a Savior. Mary was redeemed by the grace of Christ, but by anticipation.

Here’s the problem, Sarah:

If Mary was conceived and born without original sin and if, as Catholic theologians suggest, she was also free from *“actual” * sin, then Mary NEVER EVER was numbered amongst the “ungodly.” Hence, she could never be numbered amongst the redeemed since the Scriptures explicity state that Christ died for the “UNGODLY” (Rom. 5:6). The redeemed are only those for whom Christ died. Christ did not die for the “godly.” Tragically, Catholic theologians have excluded Mary from divine redemption. Thank the Lord Scripture does not concur with Catholic theologians on their conjecture.

 

[Mickey]

linus:

Here’s the problem, Sarah:

If Mary was conceived and born without original sin and if, as Catholic theologians suggest, she was also free from *“actual” *sin, then Mary NEVER EVER was numbered amongst the “ungodly.” Hence, she could never be numbered amongst the redeemed since the Scriptures explicity state that Christ died for the “UNGODLY” (Rom. 5:6). The redeemed are only those for whom Christ died. Christ did not die for the “godly.” Tragically, Catholic theologians have excluded Mary from divine redemption. Thank the Lord Scripture does not concur with Catholic theologians on their conjecture.

Here is some enlightening reading for you linus. Enjoy!

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp

 

[Sarah_Jane]

linus:

Tragically, Catholic theologians have excluded Mary from divine redemption. Thank the Lord Scripture does not concur with Catholic theologians on their conjecture.

They don’t have excluded Mary from Redemption.

“Redeemed by reason of the merits of her Son and united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie” (Lumen Gentium, Vatican II)

 

[DianJo]

linus:

Her question was where in the Bible the I.C. is taught. Her problem is not against non-catholics but the fact that the Bible just doesn’t teach it. There’s plenty of material out there on the teaching of the Catholic church on this topic, but nothing in the Bible itself. Her only real defense with non-catholics is she believes it because her church teaches it. It’s really quite that simple. But as she can see by what has been presented on this thread, she cannot appeal to the Bible itself for support.

I beg to differ with your assertion that it is not taught in the bible! You refuse to see that it’s taught in the bible because it’s been presented to you. It seems your only intent is to argue. I’m sorry you don’t see it or understand it but don’t lead a child down the same misguided path that you’re on.

We are trying to give this young person the correct, implicit, teaching of the bible along with the understanding of the Church. Since you do not believe what has been put before you by the people here and by the Church, I kindly suggest you not confuse her anymore while we try to give her the proper understanding of the Immaculate Conception. The child has been confused enough with all your “own interpretations and opinions.”

If you want to DEBATE the Immaculate Conception, start another thread and quit taking this one off track. I don’t mean to be rude, but the child asked for specific information about what the bible and the Church teaches and we are trying to give it to her but you don’t seem to want us to do that.

Sorry if I’ve offended you, that was not my intention.

.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

linus:

Actually, you’re just pouring a doctrine into a verse which states nothing of the sort. “Full of Grace” simply means “highly favored.” The text neither states nor implies anything about the birth of Mary. The context of the account is about the one she is to give birth to, not her own.

To understand the doctrine of I.C one has to understand original sin and its consequences for mankind

1/ It bought on spiritual death, which is the separation of the Soul from the life of God

2/Changed or damaged human nature, such that all human beings since then are innately predisposed to sin, and are powerless to overcome this predisposition without divine intervention.

At baptism we receive sanctifying grace, which is a share in the life of God. Grace sanctifies us, increases in us the more we co-operate with it. We can see grace working in people at different levels. Some are spiritually more advanced than others that is they are more spiritually perfect, or sanctified.

When we all reach heaven we will all be perfected in grace, that is there will be no sin or sinful attachment (inclination to sin) even though we will still be endowed with free will. While on earth we are work in progress, for Catholics any imperfections left at death is eventually erased in purgatory.

In regards Mary and the I.C Luke 1:28 the phrase “highly favoured” is used for the Greek Charitoo. However it means more than highly favoured. Its primary meaning is to be graced not just on being asked to be our saviour mother but also in being spiritually perfected in grace for the task on hand. In this case ‘Charitoo’ is used in the perfect passive participle, that it is an action, which has been completed. If Charitoo just meant she was highly favoured in being asked then it would not be in the past tense but in the present.

For Catholics Mary was in a state of spiritually perfection from the moment of her conception (through the merits of her Son) freeing her from the effects of original sin, a state that we will be in on entering heaven. The vast majority of the Fathers both East and West attest in their writings that Mary was always sinless; this in itself is a testimony through the Holy Spirit of her being free from the effects of original sin.

Consider the Old Covenant, which prepares the way for Christ by types and figures which foreshadow the mysteries of the Christian economy of salvation. In the Old Covenant, the Word of God is the Torah, represented at its heart by the Ten Commandments, the two tablets, which out of reverence for God’s Word, and at His command, were placed in a wooden Ark, upon which the glory of God descended in a visible fashion to indicate God’s Presence with His People. The Tablets are types of the Eternal Word, the Son of God, who pitched His tent among us at the Incarnation (John 1:14), as the Meeting Tent was pitched in the midst of Israel. The Tablets, of course, were kept in the Ark out of the sight of men. The Ark itself was designed by God. It was holy by virtue of the Tablets within. No man could touch it unbidden, and one man died for doing so even with a good intention (1 Chr. 3;10).

The Ark is a type of Mary, who bore the Son of God into this world. And like the Ark, Mary was established by God in holiness and preserved untouched by man (a Virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ).
How could the Son of God come into the world in any other way? Since He took His flesh from Mary alone, how could He enter a vessel subeject to the effects of original sin, subject to the kingdom of Satan?

Pax

Brian

 

[Axion]

linus:

I never said “nobody interprets “full of grace” as immaculately conceived” (obviously all of Catholicism does) but that you cannot derive that interpretation from the text, or the context of Lk. 1:28. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is poured into the word “kacharitomene,” it is impossible to construe that doctrine from the word itself. The only way you could is if Gabriel went on to explain to Mary that he greeted her in such a manner because she was “immaculately conceived.” But, of course, he does not.

This is silly.

1. Your argument is that you cannot derive a teaching from scripture unless it is specifically explained in the text. Apply that reasoning to the Triinity and other Christian doctrines and you end up in the soup.
2. Your second argument results from confusion on your part. It is not the Immaculate Conception specifically that is derived from the title “Full of Grace” but Mary’s sinlessness. What you are doing is confusing a **refinement ** of the ancient doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness, with the basic doctrine of her sinlessness itself. The Immaculate Concepton describes how and when Mary was made sinless. This is not really addressed by “Full of Grace”. What the title Full of Grace does indicate is that Mary was absolutely sinless **before ** the angel appeared to her, since having a fullness of Grace necessitates the complete absence of sin. Just as a fullness of righteousness necessitates and absence of iniquity.

Check out the context: In Lk. 1:28 Gabriel greets Mary as one “highly favored.” In Lk. 1:30 he explains, “Do not be afraid, MARY (he does not call her “Full of Grace”) for you have found FAVOR with God.” He then goes on to tell her the event that will take place as a result of her highly favored position: she will conceive by the Holy Spirit and give birth to the Messiah. The narrative suggests nothing concerning Mary’s own conception.

The greeting is NOT “highly favoured” that is a recent **mistranslation ** made by men with an agenda.

The Greek word used by the angel is Kecharitomene. The root of this word is Charis, meaning Grace.

Highly-favoured could be a conceivable translation using secular Greek - but this would only be acceptable if the word “favour” were used as a translation for “Charis” everywhere else in the New Testament. But THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. Even those bibles which translate “Charis” as Favour" when referring to Mary, translate it as “Grace” everywhere else. This is highly misleading because in the New Testament the word “Grace” has a particular meaning distinct from “Favour”. In the New Testament “Grace” is a gift of God that saves from sin and its effects. So translating the word any differently is wrong. The correct translation is rightfully “Full of Grace”.

People on this thread were pointing to Lk. 1:28 as Biblical evidence. But Lk. 1:28, and its context, state nothing about Mary’s conception. The doctrine must be poured INTO the Greek word by an outside source - not derived from it. It is based totally on the reasoning of men, not on an exegetical study of God’s written Word. It you believe it, you must believe it based on the subjective reasoning of men - not Biblical revelation.

No.

1. What is partially derived from Full of Grace is the pre-annunciation sinlessness of Mary - not the specific of the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception is, as as already been explained, a **detailing ** of the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness. Protestants attack the Immaculate Conception, because it is a well-known doctrine they can date. However most protestants who attack it, don’t really understand what it is.
2. Catholics do not follow the protestant process of looking at isolated bible verses and inventing new doctrines which they decide can be derived from them. Catholics teach what has alrways beed taught. What has been handed down from the Apostles.Catholics KNOW the correct interpretation of these verses, since **the people who wrote those verses ** left their interpretation of them within the Church.

 

[linus]

Mickey:

Here is some enlightening reading for you linus. Enjoy! ]

QUOTED FROM THE ARTICLE YOU WANTED ME TO READ:

“The second and third arguments are related. Mary needed Jesus as her savior. His death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her (unlike to us) at the moment of her conception. (Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through Christ’s death isn’t impeded by time or space.)”

The idea that the saving effects of the cross were applied to Mary at the moment of her conception must conclude that Scripture is in error and that the Apostle Paul was a false teacher. Paul stated to the Ephesian believers: “For by grace you have been saved through FAITH…” (Eph. 2:8). It would have been impossible for Mary to have exercised saving faith at the time of her conception, and therefore God saved someone apart from faith, a violation of His own salvation requirement.

Certainly the saving effects of Christ’s cross are sovereignly applied to all true believers who died before the time of Chirst, but these died believing, hence, were saved by Christ’s shed blood, His substitutionary sacrifice. But this same saving principle, “through faith,” could not be applied to Mary at her conception. It is impossible for one to exercise faith at the time one is conceived. One can be sanctified (set apart as a vessel for God’s purpose while still in the womb), as the prophet Jeremiah was, but that’s not the same as what is being asserted about Mary.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

I think you don’t want to understand…

 

[mercygate]

linus:

The idea that the saving effects of the cross were applied to Mary at the moment of her conception must conclude that Scripture is in error and that the Apostle Paul was a false teacher. Paul stated to the Ephesian believers: “For by grace you have been saved through FAITH…” (Eph. 2:8). It would have been impossible for Mary to have exercised saving faith at the time of her conception, and therefore God saved someone apart from faith, a violation of His own salvation requirement.

While, admittedly, the situation is not entirely parallel because the John the Baptist was already well formed in his mother’s womb, he “leaped for joy” in his mother’s womb when Mary, pregnant with the Messiah, entered the house. This is a manifestation of faith. That faith must exist before rational assent is the essence of faith by grace; after all, none of us truly understands salvation in a fully rational way. For if we did, then it would not be faith, much less the grace of “saving faith.” “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Heb 11:1)

 

[Axion]

linus:

QUOTED FROM THE ARTICLE YOU WANTED ME TO READ:

“The second and third arguments are related. Mary needed Jesus as her savior. His death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her (unlike to us) at the moment of her conception. (Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through Christ’s death isn’t impeded by time or space.)”

The idea that the saving effects of the cross were applied to Mary at the moment of her conception must conclude that Scripture is in error and that the Apostle Paul was a false teacher. Paul stated to the Ephesian believers: “For by grace you have been saved through FAITH…” (Eph. 2:8). It would have been impossible for Mary to have exercised saving faith at the time of her conception, and therefore God saved someone apart from faith, a violation of His own salvation requirement.

Did Paul write his letter to Mary - or to the Ephesians?

Anyway, even taking Paul’s injunction as applying to others, what you neglect is that God has perfect foreknowledge of people’s choices. Mary was not only Faithful, she made the most important act of Faith ever made by a mortal, when she accepted God’s Will for Her life. So Mary was not saved apart from Faith.

 

[DianJo]

linus:

QUOTED FROM THE ARTICLE YOU WANTED ME TO READ:

The idea that the saving effects of the cross were applied to Mary at the moment of her conception must conclude that Scripture is in error and that the Apostle Paul was a false teacher. Paul stated to the Ephesian believers: “For by grace you have been saved through FAITH…” (Eph. 2:8). It would have been impossible for Mary to have exercised saving faith at the time of her conception, and therefore God saved someone apart from faith, a violation of His own salvation requirement.

Mary did not have to exercise “saving faith” as we do because she was perserved at her coneption by God’s grace, therefore she had the faith to accept God’s will for her life! Mary was not like us in the same sense that we have to learn to know God - Mary knew Him from the time she was conceived - hence Immaculate Conception! She received Christ’s saving power at her conception, she was saved from the Original Sin. She didn’t lack the fullest of God’s grace (just like Eve when she was created without sin) like we do. Original Sin is a lack of sanctifying grace rather than a mark or stain. Mary lacked nothing at her conception because of God’s saving grace applied to her in advance.

 

[DianJo]

linus:

QUOTED FROM THE ARTICLE YOU WANTED ME TO READ:

“The second and third arguments are related. Mary needed Jesus as her savior. His death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her (unlike to us) at the moment of her conception. (Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through Christ’s death isn’t impeded by time or space.)”

The idea that the saving effects of the cross were applied to Mary at the moment of her conception must conclude that Scripture is in error and that the Apostle Paul was a false teacher. Paul stated to the Ephesian believers: “For by grace you have been saved through FAITH…” (Eph. 2:8). It would have been impossible for Mary to have exercised saving faith at the time of her conception, and therefore God saved someone apart from faith, a violation of His own salvation requirement.

Certainly the saving effects of Christ’s cross are sovereignly applied to all true believers who died before the time of Chirst, but these died believing, hence, were saved by Christ’s shed blood, His substitutionary sacrifice. But this same saving principle, “through faith,” could not be applied to Mary at her conception. It is impossible for one to exercise faith at the time one is conceived. One can be sanctified (set apart as a vessel for God’s purpose while still in the womb), as the prophet Jeremiah was, but that’s not the same as what is being asserted about Mary.

I understand what you are saying about Catholics - thinking that God is ready to cut us off at a moments notice, HOWEVER, you misunderstand completely.

As a Catholic who has “accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior” I don’t see God that way at all. I see Him as a loving Father that is trying to teach me in a loving way. If I do wrong - he doesn’t want to cut me off, He didn’t make me sin. I CHOSE to do that. It was me that pulled away from Him. He’s waiting there with open arms to welcome me back - as long as I repent and am truly sorry for my sins. He gives me the grace to repair my relationship with Him in the Sacrament of Reconciliation - I reconcile myself with God, whom I have offended.

To me, he acts just like my earthly father would. If I disobey my earthly father there are consequences for my actions. My earthly father wants to reconcile with me and does everything possible for that to happen, therefore, God has given us countless ways of strengthening our bond with Him and repairing it when we break that bond. It’s called the sacraments. He wants me with Him. I just have to remember that and not disobey (sin) and when I do, I run to Him to make up! He accepts my apology and forgives me with more grace. The Eucharist keeps me focused on Him in the most intimate communion - He gives me this communion to make me strong to avoid temptation.

No, as Catholics, we do not see God as ready to cut us off. In fact, we sometimes see ourselves in a better position because we take full advantage of the sacraments and the many graces He bestows on us through those sacraments. We take advantage of the many avenues He has given us to get to Him. He is our loving Father - that’s why we don’t fret about our salvation - we have, oh, what do you call it? - an assured confidence? in our salvation. If we follow the instructions He left us on how to get to Him, then we can be confident that we will be with Him in the end.

 

[Mickey]

linus:

It is impossible for one to exercise faith at the time one is conceived.

With God, all things are possible.