Mary's immaculate conception and history

[susanlo]

When is it believed that Mary’s immaculate conception was first known about by man? Who was the first to be aware that her conception was different? How did they know? Is there a widely accepted answer by the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Benadam]

There are many here who would know the history much better than me. But I can offer a preview.

The Immaculate Conception ofr Mary is believed because the Assumption of Mary.is believed.

The Assumption of Mary means she must have been conceived without original sin. According to tradition the Apostles were witness to the event. The Assumption of Mary is a teaching that originates in the Sensus Fidelium. A persistent and universal belief of the faithful. The Assumption of Mary requires that she not have original sin and that leads to the belief in the Immaculate Conception.

 

[fhansen]

From as far back as is known, the Church in the east and west has believed in the sinlessness of Mary. Born without original sin, then free from personal sin, as an act of grace. The reasons that Church father’s and theologians have given for this is that it would be only proper for the Theotokos or God-bearer to be pure.

 

[goodcatholic]

As a Sola Scripturian would say: “where does it say this in the Bible?”

 

[MT1926]

When is it believed that Mary’s immaculate conception was first known about by man? Who was the first to be aware that her conception was different?

It seems to be first discussed implicitly by the early Church Father Justin Martyr in 153 AD.

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

It becomes slightly more explicit by Irenaues in 189…

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

As well as others

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan

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 (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Continued…

 

[MT1926]

It becomes explicitly taught by Augustine

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

How did they know? Is there a widely accepted answer by the Roman Catholic Church?

Based on the teaching of Scripture, Tradition and the Church Magesterium. If you read the above quotes you can see, from the beginning, the early Christians made a connection between Eve and Mary. As the saying goes, the New is concealed in the Old and the Old is revealed in the New. The New Testament helps us put Genesis 3:15 into context.

In Genesis 3:15 God says to Satan: “I will put enmity between you and the woman [Mary] and between your offspring and hers [Jesus]. He will strike at your head while you strike at His heal.” The seed of Satan is sin. The seed of the woman is Jesus. Enmity is a complete separation. God applies the term to Mary and Satan as well as to Jesus and sin. If Mary were to sin even once there would be no complete separation between her and Satan. Since the Word of God said there would be enmity between Mary and Satan, the Early Fathers believed it and taught accordingly. Those who say the woman spoken of here was Eve or the Church or even Israel forget that all of those entities either were guilty of sin or were comprised of sinners. Thus there could not be any enmity between them and Satan.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[fhansen]

As a Catholic should say, what difference does that make?

 

[Gorgias]

As a Sola Scripturian would say: “where does it say this in the Bible?”

Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ Κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.

 

[Medawlinno]

Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ Κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.

That doesn’t suggest anything with respect to Mary being without original sin.

To the OP -

This, as well as the Assumption, is just ‘tradition’ in the CC - there’s nothing in scripture to solidly support either, if that’s what you’re asking.

There are a few passages sited as ‘suggestive’ for the Assumption, but they’re tenuous at best and require a lot of ‘reading into’ the text.

If on the other hand, you’re referring to her immaculate conception of Jesus, then, as demonstrated above, scripture supports it 100%.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ Κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.

That doesn’t suggest anything with respect to Mary being without original sin.

Sure it does, if you understand the implications of the grammar! Moreover, he says that God is “with you” or “in your company”. Do we say that of unbaptized people?

If on the other hand, you’re referring to her immaculate conception of Jesus, then, as demonstrated above, scripture supports it 100%.

Please don’t conflate terms – it confuses everyone! “Immaculate conception” refers to Mary, not Jesus…!

 

[Medawlinno]

Sorry, I don’t really see it -

“Greetings, (one who is) favored with grace, the Lord (is) with you” - perhaps you could elaborate.

Yeah, I get that a bit mixed up at times - I forget it refers strictly to Mary’s birth.

 

[kainosktisis]

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

This is the one that does it for me. The original Ark of the Covenant was made perfectly - specifically to God’s specifications - even though earthly. It was so holy that anyone who was unauthorized to do so looked into it or touched it, they literally dropped dead: it was THAT holy. It was so holy that it was housed in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem, & only the only human who could approach it in the Holy of Holies (outside of the team of authorized priests assigned to carry it & prepare it for movement) - once a year - was the High Priest, who would enter on Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement).

The original Ark of the Covenant contained the tablets w/ the 10 Commandments, a jar of manna from the desert, & Aaron’s staff that had budded, identifying him as God’s chosen High Priest.

When we look at the Blessed Virgin, she carried within her womb Jesus Christ, Who is God the Son, the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity - Our Living Bread from heaven, Our Great High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, & the Word Made Flesh Who dwelt among us ushering in the New Covenant in His flesh.

Also the title of kecharitomene (κεχαριτωμένη) - full of grace (which some have rendered as “highly favored”) - she had that grace before the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit - before the actual birth of the Messiah.

 

[stpurl]

The original Greek is not ‘highly favored’ but ‘full of grace’ and in a particular use (we have tenses and voices in English, for example, but Greek has even more nuances) in which the ‘full of grace’ means not just a kind of ‘right now you’re very special’ but a "You are, and were, absolutely totally full of the grace of God such that absolutely no spot or stain of evil has ever been upon you, not even in the womb. I believe according to experts this is absolutely the only example in the Bible (with reference to Mary) that that particular word formation is used. So yes, I do believe that it is a Scripture proof for the Immaculate Conception. Remember too that human biology and reproduction were not understood in anywhere NEAR the modern way, so the average person of the time would not be worrying about ‘when’ but rather marveling at the power of God to create such a perfect human being to be the Mother of His Son.

 

[Medawlinno]

Have to do this in three posts due to length - 1 of 3

The word κεχαριτωμένη is the Perfect Participle Middle/Passive form of the word χαριτόω, a verb which means “to favor” or “bestow freely upon.” It does come from the Greek noun meaning grace (χάρις), however the idea here, as implied by the verb form, is that grace is being bestowed upon or given to the person, not that the person already has it, or is full of it. The only other time that the verb is used in the New Testament is in Ephesians 1:6, when Paul speaks of grace “which He freely bestowed (ἐχαρίτωσεν; Aorist Indicative Active) on us in the Beloved” (NASB). This is why the newer translations render it as “O favored one” rather than “full of grace.” In the interlinear work created by William and Robert Mounce, χαριτόω is defined in the context of Luke 1:28 as “to be visited with free favor, be an object of gracious visitation” (pg. 1194). The NET notes likewise read:

The address, “favored one” (a perfect participle, Grk “Oh one who is favored”) points to Mary as the recipient of God’s grace, not a bestower of it. She is a model saint in this passage, one who willingly receives God’s benefits. The Vulgate rendering “full of grace” suggests something more of Mary as a bestower of grace, but does not make sense here contextually.
Far from the notion that the phrase full of grace “finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary,” let alone that it implies a “godlike state of soul,” even a layman’s study of the angel’s words discovers that, while respectful and signifying the special favor Mary had found with God, it doesn’t represent anything close to what the Immaculate Conception of Mary teaches. In fact, the previously quoted Catholic Encyclopedia even admits that the use of “full of grace” in Luke 1:28 serves “only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma” (ibid).

One serious attempt at defending the Roman Catholic understanding of Luke 1:28 can be found in Dave Armstrong’s book The Catholic Verses. In the chapter dealing with this subject, Armstrong writes that “the Catholic argument hinges on the meaning of kecharitomene” (pg. 183). In order to prove the correctness of the Roman position, he takes the noun form of the word (χάρις), cites several passages from the epistles of Paul and John that speak of salvific grace, and then argues that, as Mary was said to have been “full of grace,” this clearly meant she was, in essence, full of salvific grace and hence completely saved and sinless (pg. 183-184).

 

[Medawlinno]

2 of 3 -

A few problems arise from this line of argumentation:

1. χαριτόω is a verb, not a noun. Verbs function differently than do nouns. You cannot take nouns and try to read them as operating, or referring to, the same thing as a verb. It would be like taking “pizza” and “delivering pizza” and implying that the two are equatable in what they are trying to convey. This doesn’t even cover that χαριτόω here is in participle form, and hence serves to qualify or modify a noun, further transforming its function.
2. Even if we accept (for the sake of argument) that there is a connection between χαριτόω and χάρις, this argument relies upon a picking and choosing of New Testament uses for χάρις. It is said in Luke 2:52 that the young Christ grew “in stature and χάρις with God”: does this imply that Christ was formerly empty of salvific χάρις? Did the young Christ have to be filled up with salvific χάρις over time like an automobile would with gasoline? Does that imply that the young Christ was formerly unsaved, or could have lost his salvation, because he wasn’t full of the salvific χάρις Paul speaks about. Likewise, Christ asks in Luke 17:9 if the master in the parable would be χάρις towards the servant for doing what he was ordered: does this imply that the human master, by his own power, was able to give salvific grace to his servant? Was salvific grace even part of the context of Luke 17:9, let alone Luke 2:52? Why are we to only accept the use of χάρις in a salvific context from Paul’s and John’s epistles to read into Luke 1:28? Why not the use of the word elsewhere? Again, this argument relies upon picking and choosing.
3. There is no word here in the Greek which signifies “full of” or “complete.” This argumentation is using a noun form of “grace” and applying it to an archaic English translation of the verb form. Also, there are no Greek words for “full of” in this passage, those are part of the archaic translation for χαριτόω - a translation which most New Testament Greek scholars (including the ones Armstrong himself cites) believe to be erroneous, along with the Vulgate’s translation and the Roman Catholic interpretation.
4. Similar to the first problem, this argumentation presumes that the very word means the exact same thing in every single context, similar to how some synergists try to argue that the words “world” and “all” are used in the exact same context throughout scripture. Armstrong, for his part, will admit that the word has different meanings, but only when he examines his critics and those with differing viewpoints.
5. The word, as we said before, is also seen in Ephesians 1:6, which is commonly translated as “bestowed upon.” Most New Testament Greek scholars connect the use of the two passages (Lk 1:28; Ep 1:6) in their use of χαριτόω, including the Protestant scholars whom Armstrong cites in his book.

 

[Medawlinno]

3 of 3 -

1. Let us say (again, for the sake of argument) that the use of χαριτόω in Luke 1:28 does mean Mary was full of salvific grace at the annunciation - this does not conclude this salvific grace was given at her birth. Nothing in the grammar itself suggests something that happened in the far past, and one might as well assume that this means the Virgin Mary was filled with salvific grace right at that very moment, or at some point just before the angel appeared. Going from Luke 1:28 and the grammar of χαριτόω alone, it grants only the slight possibility of the sinlessness of Mary from that point on, not the possibility of her immaculate conception.

Above taken from Design of Providence - Jan. 2014

The fact is, κεχαριτωμένη simply means a bestowing of favor from God. It does not mean anything more.

I think this is a case of people reading into the text something that just isn’t there.

 

[MT1926]

It was so holy that it was housed in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem, & only the only human who could approach it in the Holy of Holies (outside of the team of authorized priests assigned to carry it & prepare it for movement) - once a year - was the High Priest, who would enter on Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement).

This made me think of something I read last night in Behold Your Mother, by Tim Staples. I’m taking this from memory so I will do my best. Anyway, he was speaking of Revelation 11:19

19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.

He was saying that we know, from the sacred writer John, that God’s Temple in heaven isn’t a temple of brick and mortar like the Jewish temple is actually signifies a person - It’s Jesus. In John’s Gospel, the same writer of Revelation, we read…

John 2:19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body.

Revelation 11:19 also tells us that the ark of HIS covenant is there as well. This isn’t the Old Testament ark this is the Ark of the New Covenant, which is also signifies a person, Mary.

Tim flushes this out further in Chapter 12 but it would take several posts to explain.

It’s been a good read so far, just thought I’d share.

God Bless

 

[gazelam]

From as far back as is known, the Church in the east and west has believed in the sinlessness of Mary. Born without original sin, then free from personal sin, as an act of grace. The reasons that Church father’s and theologians have given for this is that it would be only proper for the Theotokos or God-bearer to be pure.

It seems very easy to challenge your assertion that “as far back as is known, the Church in the east and west has believed in the sinlessness of Mary”. Consider these quotes.

Christ alone is sinless. However, as far as we are able, let us try to sin as little as possible. (Clement of Alexandria, The Ante-Nicene Fathers 2.210)

Christ welcomes the repentance of the sinner, for He loves the repentance that follows sins. For this Word of whom we speak alone is sinless. For to sin is natural and common to all. But to return [to God] after sinning is characteristic not of any man, but only if a man of worth. (Clement of Alexandria, The Ante-Nicene Fathers 2.293)

To the son of God alone it was reserved to persevere to the end without sin. (Tertullian, The Ante-Nicene Fathers 3.244)

God alone is without sin. And the only human without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God. (Tertullian, The Ante-Nicene Fathers 3.221

If by the phrase, “those who were without sin,” [the pagan critic Celsus] means those who have never at anytime sinned,… we reply that it is impossible for a human to be without sin in that manner. In saying this, we except, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus, who did not sin. (Origen, The Ante-Nicene Fathers 4.489)

Let no one flatter himself with the notion of a pure and immaculate heart. Let no one depend on his own innocence. Let no one think that the medicine does not need to be applied to his wounds… in his epistle, John lays it down and says, “if no one can be without sin, whoever should say that he is without fault is either proud or foolish. (Cyprian, The Ante-Nicene Fathers 5.476)

No one can boast of being so free from sin as not even to have an evil thought. (Methodist, The Ante-Nicene Fathers 6.365)

No one can do without defect as long as he is hardened with a covering of flesh. For that infirmity of the flesh is subject to the dominion of sin and a threefold manner: in deeds, words and thoughts. (Lactantius, The Ante-Nicene Fathers 7.191)

I hope this helps…

 

[susanlo]

The Immaculate Conception ofr Mary is believed because the Assumption of Mary.is believed.

The Assumption of Mary means she must have been conceived without original sin. According to tradition the Apostles were witness to the event. The Assumption of Mary is a teaching that originates in the Sensus Fidelium. A persistent and universal belief of the faithful. The Assumption of Mary requires that she not have original sin and that leads to the belief in the Immaculate Conception.

That is another good question. When was the Assumption first known about. My understanding is that the only mention of Mary’s death in the first 500 years by the Christian writers was by Epiphanius, and he wrote that nobody knew what happened to Mary. So what historical facts are there to show that the Assumption occurred? When did Christians start accepting this belief?

 

[goodcatholic]

Don’t think that is enough to satisfy all Protestants.