Mary's immaculate conception and history

[susanlo]

We have no idea how many ‘saints’ (don’t know why you put scare quotes there) might not have believed something in the way people do now.

By “Saints” I meant Roman Catholic canonized capital-S Saints. The Roman Catholic Church has determined that these people are in heaven. This is different than lower-case-s saints who are everyday Christians. Using quotations probably wasn’t the best way to write that sentence.

However, sainthood does not mean infallibility or impeccability.

Being a saint doesn’t mean that everything you ever did, said, or taught has to be perfectly dogmatically ‘right’.

People change and grow.

But my understanding is that Catholics today are taught that it is necessary for salvation to believe in the immaculate conception. Can someone be a practicing Catholic in 2018 but believe that only Jesus was sinless? Is this an acceptable belief?

The average first Christian probably would not have been able to speak about the Trinity the way we do (the apostles’ creed itself comes from the 4th century or so, right, certainly that’s the case for the Nicene creed) but does that mean that an early Christian martyr couldn’t possibly be a saint because he never explicitly believed that Jesus was the Second Person of the Trinity or that the Holy Spirit proceeded from The Father and The Son?

The Trinity was written about and defended by the 2nd century. However being able to accurately articulate all of the terms related to the Trinity is not essential to salvation. The teaching of the Apostles and the inspired Scriptures provided information to the Christians in the first century about the nature of God and Jesus.

Plus, we have Jesus Himself in Scripture saying that "the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, will guide you to all Truth.

Now, if we already had ‘all the truth’ given to us exactly as we would need it forever, why would we need the Holy Spirit to guide us?

This is what I am wondering. Was the immaculate conception revealed to mankind by the Holy Spirit at some point in history?

There was never an explicit teaching held by all members of the Catholic Christian faith and specifically stated as being the position that MUST be accepted, taught, and believed by Catholic Christians, that Mary was not born free from sin.

There wasn’t until 1854. Now I thought it had to be believed by all Catholics.

 

[tgGodsway]

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

What scripture are we reading it differently?

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes, but you hypocritically make an exception for children prior to the age of reason. Your theology is flawed.

I have consistently said, Let the children be judged by their sin, if such a judgment were possible.

 

[tgGodsway]

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

I appeal to a much higher source than Boettner. I appeal to the word of God Himself, you know, the one who’s word you reject.

You remind me of the warnings Jesus gave the Pharisees and especially the warnings Paul gave to the Corinthian church, “professing to be wise, they became fools, and changing the glory of the un-corruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…” Ro. 1

Since you never answer with a direct response to the scriptures I give you, you deflect by appealing to my “person” or level of intellect instead. this is all you’ve got.

Talk real theology using the passages in question, or get out of the kitchen guanophore.

 

[Gorgias]

Jesus did not assume flesh of sin, but was “born of a maternal flesh of sin.”

You’re correct that I mis-stated the application of the “law of sinful flesh” statement. However, the claim I’m responding to is that this demonstrates that Mary is sinful, which is a claim that I think we agree isn’t being made here.

As you mention, “flesh of sin” speaks to Augustine’s understanding of intercourse: he believed that the pleasure of intercourse was sinful, even in marriage! (He gave a bit of a pass to enjoying sex within marriage, though: he only considered it to be venially sinful. )

Now, with this in mind, let’s re-read the passage that @tgGodsway says that proves Mary’s sinful nature. Jesus was not conceived from sexual intercourse – therefore, as you state, the conception of Jesus was not “according to the law of sinful flesh”. Mary’s conception, however, proceeded from intercourse – her conception was of the law of sinful flesh.

However, this speaks to sin in the parent, not in the person conceived. Mary’s parents conceived her in sin (i.e., intercourse and passion); Mary, however, did not conceive Jesus in sin (i.e., sexual intercourse). This does not claim that Mary was sinful, however.

The conception mentioned in this passage is Mary’s conception of Jesus. This is not referring to Mary’s mother’s conception of Mary.

It does, but not in the way I originally suggested (thanks for the catch!). Mary’s mother’s conception of Mary herself is what’s being referred to by the phrase “born of a maternal flesh of sin.” In other words, Mary was born of a conception that proceeded from sexual intercourse.

This is similar to what he taught elsewhere. I understand that Augustine believed that sex, even in a marriage, was sinful. I think that may have affected his teaching.

Precisely. With the caveat that Augustine thought that sex for the sake of conceiving a child was not sinful. You just weren’t supposed to enjoy it, even in marriage.

This shows that Mary was chosen because of the merit of her faith, and not that she was chosen before she was born.

No, I’m gonna disagree with you there… that line is talking about Mary conceiving Jesus, not Mary being chosen: “by her faith the holy seed should be framed within her.” Mary was chosen prior to the Annunciation; her expression of faith (“behold, the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done to me according to your word.”) is what merited the conception of Jesus.

I don’t see how this would show that Mary was immaculately conceived. This is showing how Jesus was immaculately conceived.

Right. But, contra @tgGodsway, it likewise doesn’t show that Mary was sinful, herself.

 

[guanophore]

What?.. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant? please explain this.

Others have already done so much better.

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Virgin Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.htm

Ritual Uncleanness

Clean, Unclean - Bible Meaning & Definition - Baker's Dictionary

As to her being a second Eve, this too was never taught in the Apostle’s doctrine,

Mary as the new Eve

6 Biblical Reasons Mary Is the “New Eve”

 

[tgGodsway]

That’s a different offering. That’s not the offering of Leviticus 12.

the offering of Lev. 12 is a twofold offering which correlated with Luke 2:22. It was two-fold. the burnt offering symbolizing complete surrender of the will of God in matters of menstrual purity. The second offering was a sin-offering acknowledging sin. It also patterns exactly with what you see in Lev. 5-7 for the male. Let Leviticus interpret Luke 2 and you will have to yield to what the Spirit of the Lord has said.

Mary was a women born under the law. This was Paul’s typical expression for one who is subject to the Law. Gal. 4:4. The law was not for the sinless, but for the sinner.
My goodness Gorgias, what more biblical evidence do you need?
This issue makes me understand why some of my protestant peers say that the CC has an idol in Mary. I try to defend against that kind of talk, but I’m starting to change my mind.

 

[Gorgias]

The second offering was a sin-offering acknowledging sin.

@tgGodsway, I’m cool with you asserting that the new mother is making an offering for her sin… if you can tell me what that sin is.

You point to Leviticus 5 through 7. We can easily see what sins the sin offerings are being made for:

• If a person, either having seen or come to know something, does wrong by refusing as a witness under oath to give information
• if someone, without being aware of it, rashly utters an oath with bad or good intent
• When a person commits sacrilege by inadvertently misusing any of the LORD’s sacred objects
• etc, etc, etc.

Can you see that the very text you cite identifies precisely what the sin is?

Now, once again, I ask you: what sin did Mary commit, pursuant to Leviticus 12? Your claim is that Luke 2 identifies that Mary sinned. Luke 2 points to Leviticus 12. What was the sin of Mary that Luke 2 references, in your point of view?

My goodness Gorgias, what more biblical evidence do you need?

An identification of the particular sin. You’re the one making the case. If you want us to assent to your claim, you must identify the particular sin.

This issue makes me understand why some of my protestant peers say that the CC has an idol in Mary.

Mary isn’t God. Your friends are wrong. But, if you can identify what sin Mary committed, you’ll go a long way in demonstrating your point…

 

[stpurl]

Anybody can ‘know’ what Sacred Tradition is, not simply Catholics. All Christians were aware of it for centuries just as they are today.

Why do you base your belief on what the Bible reveals when the Bible as you know it did not exist for the first 350 years of Christendom? Depending on who you were, where you lived, when you lived, and who was preaching, your “Scripture” might have included a few letters of St. Paul, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and THOMAS, the Didache, several letters from St. Peter, letters from St. Clement and St. Ignatius, and the Shepherd of Hermes, as well as stories from the book of Genesis and Exodus, perhaps the book of Ruth, passages from Isaiah and some of the psalms and Wisdom.

Were those early Christians not sufficiently taught even though they lacked the KJV?

 

[tgGodsway]

What?.. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant? please explain this.

Others have already done so much better

I read the link and was with you all the way till the last few statements on the right. The idea that Mary is the women of Revelation 12 is not only absurd but without justification. Did Mary run into the wilderness for 1260 days while the dragon persecuted the remnant of her seed? There seems to be a streak of unreasonableness when on the subject of Mary. Most scholars agree that the “women” of revelation 12 is a remnant of the Church. Again we have the women of Genesis 3:15 said to be Mary, and now here in Revelation 12. Yet the women of Genesis 3:15 is proved to be the Church, who is the seed and in feminine gender.

Lastly, from the link, were subjective testimonies by people who thought it was Mary. Why impose any subjective element into the debate at all?

 

[guanophore]

Catholicism claims to have a Sacred Tradition that only they know about

No, Catholicism makes no such claim. On the contrary the whole of the faith is readily available through many publicly available resources. The fact that people such as yourself refuse to acknowledge that it exists does not mean it cannot be known by those who are interested.

special authority to infallibly interpret Scripture. This allows them to proclaim doctrines that are infallible.

I think you are confused, susanlo. The Catholic Church does not extract doctrines from the pages of scripture, so the ability to interpret the Scripture infallibly is not the source or basis for the infallible doctrines. On the contrary, the fulness of the faith was committed to the Church whole and entire before any word of the NT was ever written. The source of the infallible doctrine is Jesus.

Often it is claimed that these doctrines have been believed by all Christians since the time of the Apostles.

I would go beyond “often” and say ALWAYS. The doctrines of the faith were deposited once for all to the Church. They cannot be added to or subtracted from. They cannot 'evolve over time". They are the Word of God preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

In Protestant churches the Scriptures are God’s Word and the only source of infallible teaching.

Yes, this is inherently problematic. Infallibility requires conscience, will, ability to take authority and accept consequences. Unfortunately, no text, however Holy, has these attributes, which are peculiar to persons.

Reading the Bible, praying and worshiping with others are all ways to learn and grow in our faith. However even the most educated and prayerful Christian still doesn’t claim to be an infallible teacher.

Yes, the Catholic Church teaches these wayst to grow in faith also. But no Catholic will claim to be infallible. Infallibility is a “negative” gift. The Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching error. Otherwise, the faithful would pass through the gates of hell.

 

[guanophore]

We read teachings from recent leaders as well as ancient Christian leaders. We can learn and grow so much from reading and learning from these sources, but recognize that these leaders are human and some teachings could be in error.

Yes, this is true for Catholics as well. We must rely on the infallibility of the Church to help us determine what is error, and what is part of the divine deposit of faith.

We don’t look to our human leaders to be the source of infallible teaching as is done in Catholicism.

Fortunately Catholics do not do this either. What makes the Church infallible are the divine elements, not the human. The Church is infalible because Jesus is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. We can enjoy infallibility to the extent that we are in unity with these infallible elements.

my belief is based on what the Bible reveals to us.

Although this sounds very noble, what it boils down to is that your faith is based on what you perceive the Bible reveals. Since there are as many perceptions as there are belly buttons, there is a lot of disagreement about what “the Bible reveals to us”.

 

[tgGodsway]

Now, once again, I ask you: what sin did Mary commit, pursuant to Leviticus 12? Your claim is that Luke 2 identifies that Mary sinned. Luke 2 points to Leviticus 12. What was the sin of Mary that Luke 2 references, in your point of view?

The Luke 2 passage did not intend to spell out Mary’s sins. Neither did I.
I only brought up the fact that Mary, as a Jewish mother and wife, practiced the law according to her obligations. Sinless people do not need the Law of Moses. The Law is for sinners.

There is an inconsistency here in your theology because according to you, Mary was sinless and she knew it, not to mention others around her would have known this and spoken of it.

The divine record makes no such claim. Her association with the Disciples in the upper room (Acts 1:14) tells me, that they knew her, and she knew them, yet we have absolutely no doctrine from any apostle or N.T. writer on probably one of the most important theological claims ever. Certainly Paul with all that he had said on the doctrine of sin, would have included Mary’s special case, or refuted it if he thought it was wrong. But no. nothing. This is a blind willingness to believe a lie. That means it is an idol.

 

[kainosktisis]

@TgGodsway

I sometimes like to make comparisons of the perspectives of Jewish teaching to Christian on various topics as it can shed some light on the Christian beliefs/origins of practices.

I came across this:

“Why the difference in the laws of ritual purity between the birth of males and females?”

https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...l-purity-after-birth-of-males-and-females.htm

"You write the word “cleanliness,” when really it is “ritual purity.” A woman’s “impurity,” or “tumah” in Hebrew, during her menstruation is a built-in component of her natural monthly cycle. Her status of “impurity” demonstrates her descent from a peak level of holiness, when she had the ability to conceive a precious new life through her union with her husband.

The status of “tumah” is not meant to imply sinfulness, degradation or inferiority. On the contrary, it emphasizes, in particular, the great level of holiness inherent in woman’s G‑dly power to create and nurture a new life within her body, and the great holiness of a husband and wife’s union, in general. Since a woman possesses this lofty potential, she, also bears the possibility of its void; hence her status as tameh, ritually impure. Since she experienced “the touch of death,” so to speak, with the loss of potential life, as reflected by her menstruation, she enters this status of “impure.”"

Wow…I had no idea…Interesting…

 

[tgGodsway]

my belief is based on what the Bible reveals to us.

You are on the right path with your statement!

 

[Gorgias]

I only brought up the fact that Mary, as a Jewish mother and wife, practiced the law according to her obligations. Sinless people do not need the Law of Moses. The Law is for sinners.

Jesus observed the Law of Moses. Are you claiming, then, that Jesus is a sinner?

There is an inconsistency here in your theology because according to you, Mary was sinless and she knew it, not to mention others around her would have known this and spoken of it.

The divine record makes no such claim.

Really? Are you sure about that?
Luke 2:

Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.

Luke 2:

Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy."

Scripture does speak to it.

Certainly Paul with all that he had said on the doctrine of sin, would have included Mary’s special case. But no. nothing.

Paul was teaching people about their path to salvation. Was he teaching Mary? If not, then it doesn’t stand to reason that he’d teach someone about someone else’s path to salvation.

 

[guanophore]

for some reason you seem to think the passage is only dealing with women. No. Mary and her husband came and practiced the requirements of the Law together as a family not Mary, alone. Go back and read how the high priest performed it, not Mary herself.

No, tgG. You are confusing ritual impurity with moral transgressions (sins). There is nothing sinful about giving birth, or having menstrual periods.

Being free from sin means that we are not enslaved to sin. It does not mean that rules, laws and obedience suddenly do not apply. Jesus was obedient to His parents. It did not make him a “sinner” because He obeyed them, or that he was a “sinner” because He practiced the Law.

Can someone be a practicing Catholic in 2018 but believe that only Jesus was sinless? Is this an acceptable belief?

As a matter of fact, the vast majority of American Catholics are very poorly catechized and misunderstand the immaculate conception. God will judge us based on what we know, but the ignorant are responsible to correct their ignorance.

 

[tgGodsway]

First of all, Mary has no “peers

Elizabeth comes to mind, just for one. Then, O’ I don’t know, 120 in the upper room where she hung out in a prayer meeting… All of the founders with the exception of Paul, were there to hear of her sinless state. Not a word or doctrine, only the opposite was revealed, “all have sinned…”

 

[tgGodsway]

Jesus observed the Law of Moses. Are you claiming, then, that Jesus is a sinner?

Jesus was never “under the law” as all Jews were. He came to fulfill the prophetic aspects of the law. How else will you spin this? She was a young Jewish girl under the law of Moses just like everyone else. Gal. 4:4.

 

[stpurl]

You know, I saw the post you pulled that from. Guanophore was quoting Susanlo’s post. THAT was the post that had 'my belief is based on what the Bible reveals to us. It was particularly noticeable as it was in a ‘quote box.’ You removed the quote attribution to Susanlo and put the statement, without any quote attribution or ellipses to show it had been pulled, and attributed it to guanophore by implication and then commented 'you are on the right path with YOUR STATEMENT" (my emphasis).

**** I see that you have edited post 138 to more accurately reflect who said what. Thank you. ****