Mary's immaculate conception and history

[kainosktisis]

Clement

This is actually pretty good. It’s lengthy so I will leave it at the discretion of the reader to peruse the article if they care to:

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/mary_conceived_without_sin_immaculate_conception.php

And here:

The Immaculate Conception: A Gift for You – Shameless Popery

"You will notice, several prominent doctors of the Latin Church (e.g. Aquinas, Bernard, Bonaventure, etc.) were against the doctrine. But this was because they presumed (wrongly) that it implied that Mary did not need a Savior --that she was not saved by Jesus Christ! For this reason, Aquinas, etc. insisted (with most of the Church fathers) that Mary’s sinlessness began at the time of her birth, not at her conception. But, Blessed John Duns Scottus, however, took away this concern by making it clear that Mary was still saved by Jesus; He merely saved her by expectation outside of time (just as He would if she were saved at the time of her birth, rather than at the time of her conception). So, it is by the grace of Christ and the merits of His Cross that Mary was conceived immaculately in the womb of St. Anna.

Also, of course the Popes remained neutral while the debate was taking place. This is what Popes are supposed to do while a theological issue is being debated in the Church. It was only once all doubts against the theology of the Immaculate Conception were removed that Pope Pius IX declared it to be a dogma."

One more here:

The Immaculate Conception? - Catholic Open Mic - An Old School Catholic Message Board

Food for thought…Apologies in advance if this is redundant as I haven’t read through the thread in its entirety…

 

[Kei]

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.

For this being the main crux of the argument there was 0 building on it.

The only other time the verb is used in Scripture it is describing the baptized believer in Jesus Christ. However, Jesus wasn’t even born yet. Saying she has the state similar to a baptized believer in Jesus.

Of course, the “Hail” part can come into the question as to her status…

 

[guanophore]

Sinless ( kecharitomene)? Sacred Scripture

Kecharitomene means that the one being addressed is totally full of grace in the same fashion as a vessel that is filled to overflowing. If Mary was born with the stain of original sin how could she possibly be in such a state of grace? We can’t have one without the other.

 

[susanlo]

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]).

I don’t see where this explains the immaculate conception. This explains how Jesus was conceived. “Mary received faith and joy” when the angel told her that she would conceive a baby. This doesn’t mention her conception as being different.

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]).

This shows how Mary was obedient. But other people have also been able to be obedient to God’s will. How does Mary being obedient mean that she was conceived in a way that is different from others?
(The part about sin and no sin in brackets was added in by someone who quoted this writing. This is not in the original writing.)

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]).

I haven’t been able to find the complete text of this homily. I can’t tell which adjectives are for Jesus and which ones are for Mary. It isn’t even a complete sentence that is quoted. I remember that Origen had some unique ideas regarding sins and stain regarding Mary and Jesus and the temple sacrifice. He also confused Jesus and Joshua in Zechariah 3:3. I don’t think Origen had a clear understanding of what Catholicism teaches about original sin or Mary’s immaculate conception.

 

[susanlo]

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]).
[/quote]
The words Jesus and Mary in brackets are added in. These weren’t included in Hippolytus’ work. Elsewhere it was translated with a different word in parentheses.This changes the meaning. I think it is probably best to read it without anything added in.

And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm

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]).

I can’t find this one either. I am not exactly sure what he means by stains and blemish, but it does seem like he is saying great things about Mary. I wonder why I can’t find the rest of this hymn online.

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]).

I can find this writing. I notice that all through the writing it mentions Jesus purifying mankind. Is this purification different than Mary’s? It does imply that she was purified before conceiving Jesus. This still doesn’t describe a conception that is different, but it does sound like some ideas about Mary and sinlessness were forming at this time.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310238.htm

 

[susanlo]

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]).

Ambrose as well as Augustine who you quote in the next post wrote that Mary was free of actual sin, but in another writing Augustine quotes Ambrose that only Jesus is free of Original Sin.

It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin. Whosoever, indeed, is free from sin, is free also from a conception and birth of this kind. Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he says: It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.

Chapter 47 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15062.htm

Augustine’s writing shows that he believes that Mary was given graces so that she would not sin, but that she wasn’t excluded from the original sin that he wrote about in his doctrine. His writing explicitly excludes only Jesus from original sin.
Thank you for sharing these quotes. It helps to look at them laid out in order. It seems like in the first 500 years there are no writings that reflect that Mary had a conception that was different. There are writings by Origen, Augustine and others that would be in disagreement with the Catholic understanding of the immaculate conception of Mary. I think it was some time after this time when it became a widely held belief.

 

[Kei]

In a technical sense I would say it is a later development. It had been known since very very early that she was at least at some point without “original sin”/ancestral sin, but even Thomas Aquinas didn’t believe that she was always without sin since the moment of her conception but that she was freed from original sin the moment after the conception.

Though that’s more so a technical difference than what the question is probably asking. I know St Augustine seemed pretty explicit in it. I suppose there are several questions: when did the Church come to the fulness or at least the needed understanding of original sin for the immaculate conception to make sense, for instance.

 

[guanophore]

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?

ARCHIVED
Behind the Bible: Is Mary full of grace, or just highly favored?
by Gary Michuta • May 30, 2014

At the end of the fourth century, Pope St. Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to make a fresh Latin translation of the Bible. When St. Jerome came upon Luke 1:28, he translated the angel’s title for Mary, the Greek word kecharitomene, into the Latin “gratia plena” (“full of grace”). Centuries later, Jerome’s became the official translation of the Catholic Church, and English translations, such the Douay-Rheims Bible and the Knox, rendered it as “full of grace.”

More recent Catholic translations render kecharitomene differently. Some say “favored one” (NAB) or “you who enjoy God’s favor” (NJB). Protestant translations are even more varied. (For example, the King James Version reads, “O highly favored one,” while the more interpretive God’s Word Translation gives “you are favored by the Lord.”) What accounts for these differences, and why are they important?

Getting to the Greek
The Greek language can pack a lot into a single word, which makes it difficult to convey all the nuances in English, so let’s take a closer look at kecharitomene and see what it tells us.

The word is comprised of three parts: a root, a suffix, and a prefix. Each tells us something important.

The root of kecharitomene is charitoo, which is commonly translated “grace,” a supernatural endowment gratuitously given by God (CCC 1997-1998). Scripture sometimes emphasizes what God gives — a supernatural gift (Luke 2:40, Acts 6:8) — and sometimes why God gives it — His favor or kindness (Acts 13:43, Gal. 1:15). Both are always present, because God’s gift of divine help comes from his beneficence and God’s beneficence is manifested by his divine help — which accounts for the different translations of “grace” or “favor.”

The suffix –mene indicates a passive participle, meaning Mary (the subject) is being acted upon. This is important because it shows Mary did not bring herself into this graced state, but rather it was the action of God — it describes Mary as “she who has been graced [by God].”

The prefix ke– indicates the perfect tense — meaning the action (Mary’s being graced) has been completed in the past with its results continuing in full effect.
http://www.themichigancatholic.org/2014/05/is-mary-full-of-grace-or-just-highly-favored/

The concept that Mary was fully graced in the past (prior to the annunciation) is embedded in the Greek, as well as the context, where the angel greets her, not by name, but by the Title “Full of Grace”.

 

[susanlo]

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.

The word - κεχαριτωμένη (kecharitōmenē) - was used in Luke 1:28. This word in this particular word form was only used this one time in the New Testament. I don’t know about how it was used in other Greek writing of the day. That would be interesting to learn about. Kecharitōmenē is a form of the root word - χαριτόω (charitoó) - which means “I favor, bestow freely on.” A form of this root word is also used in Ephesians 1:6 “to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:”
http://biblehub.com/greek/5487.htm
http://biblehub.com/greek/kecharito_mene__5487.htm
http://biblehub.com/greek/echarito_sen_5487.htm

 

[Benadam]

According to this article It is the oldest feast day of Our Lady.

The Assumption is the oldest feast day of Our Lady, but we don’t know how it first came to be celebrated.
Its origin is lost in those days when Jerusalem was restored as a sacred city, at the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (c. 285-337). By then it had been a pagan city for two centuries, ever since Emperor Hadrian (76-138) had leveled it around the year 135 and rebuilt it as in honor of Jupiter.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM

 

[Benadam]

Regardless of what the Fathers understood, I doubt they could transmit the finer points of the Faith like a miraculous event can. In a relative instant, a miraculous event can enter the psyche and become folklore. Truth in an instant, persistent and universal among the simple and common people. The finer points of the faith become easy to understand.because miracles become a groundfloor of faith in the mind of the common folk. The meaning of their common experiences of living are understood in light of these kinds of events.and the implications within it teach the faith. The Resurrection of Christ was the biggy.

Take for example the indigenous of South America. The Spanish arrived and dominated the native culture and set up the structures of the Church, but it wasn’t until Our Lady Guadalupe appeared that the population was converted.

Mary’s Assumption I think, was this kind of event. The absence of not just relics but forgeries of Mary’s relics aren’t found. Too few would believe they were Mary’s bones.so it wasn’t worth the effort to fake them.
I think if that is true it’s more characteristic of belief from a miraculous event than a belief spread by human teachers.

The Dormition of Mary is a good way to begin a meditation on the truth of Our Lady and her role in Salvation. Like her Son, her tomb is empty. The implications abound.

 

[MT1926]

I don’t see where this explains the immaculate conception. This explains how Jesus was conceived. “Mary received faith and joy” when the angel told her that she would conceive a baby. This doesn’t mention her conception as being different.

That’s why I said it is implicitly taught not explicitly taught.

I’m just curious are you saying the only way the immaculate conception can be true is if it was EXPLICITLY taught from the beginning?

Since I have studied the immaculate conception I have come to realize that the basis for this teaching is the connection between Mary and Eve. This is what we would call typology. A type is a person, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something in the New Testament. The New Testament types are always superior to the Old. Jesus is superior to Adam. Baptism is superior to circumcision. Christs sacrifice is superior to the Passover lamb. From this we believe that Mary would have to be superior to Eve.

I was just pointing out here how from the beginning the early Church Fathers knew that Mary was a type of Eve.

If you read this statement there is no reason for him to write it this way…

Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received

Why do we need to know Eve was a virgin and undefiled? If all this is trying to explain is how Jesus was conceived then there was no reason for him to tell us Eve was a virgin and undefiled. It adds nothing to the meaning of the chapter… UNLESS, he was trying to make a connection between Eve and Mary. Notice he goes on to say “Virgin Mary”. This is a title for Mary, not a description of her virginity at the birth of Christ. I would argue that the title Virgin Mary in the context ohere is a direct connection back to the words “a virgin and undefiled”.

Sure not explicit evidence but implicitly presented to us, unless we want to disregard that portion of the writing as insignificant.

 

[guanophore]

hrist alone is sinless

In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. Luke1 :5

How can a person be righteous and blameless in the sight of God if they sin?

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry, I don’t really see it -

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

The original Greek is not ‘highly favored’ but ‘full of grace’

Actually, “full of grace” is the Latin translation (gratia plena). But yeah, the original Greek means “she who was given grace (presumably, by God, right? ) in the past (as a completed action, with the implication that its effects continue on through the present)”.

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.

A ‘hapax legomenon’? I’ve read folks who claim that, but I’m not seeing it. In Sirach 18:17, we see a reference to κεχαριτωμένῳ, which is the same word, but with a masculine form. However, it’s a generic description – that is, it doesn’t point to a specific person, but talks about a type of person. So, Luke 1:28 is still the only place we see the term applied directly and explicitly toward a particular person, but it’s not the only place that word appears in Scripture.

(Of course, since Sirach is one of the Old Testament deuterocanonical books, some Christians don’t consider it ‘scripture’; perhaps that’s why the claim that it only appears in Luke is being made. )

 

[BartholomewB]

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.

@Medawlinno, thank you for that long three-part post. You mention Eph 1:6, where the verb χαριτοω has “us” as its object. I don’t know enough Greek to answer the question for myself, but at first sight it looks pretty conclusive that if χαριτοω is something that—according to Paul—can happen to any faithful follower of Christ, it is inconsistent to argue that in Luke 1:28 Mary is being set apart as a unique case. On the other hand, I’m aware that Paul can sometimes use words to convey a different meaning compared with the Evangelists’ use of the same terms. What is the answer here?

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t know enough Greek to answer the question for myself, but at first sight it looks pretty conclusive that if χαριτοω is something that—according to Paul—can happen to any faithful follower of Christ, it is inconsistent to argue that in Luke 1:28 Mary is being set apart as a unique case. On the other hand, I’m aware that Paul can sometimes use words to convey a different meaning compared with the Evangelists’ use of the same terms. What is the answer here?

The answer is found in the grammar. κεχαριτωμένη is a participle (so it’s being used as a noun here – “one who…”), but it’s verbal part is in the perfect tense. This means that it indicates an action that has been completed, but whose effects persist through the present (without addressing anything about the future).

So, whereas Paul can talk about people receiving grace, we know that people can either refuse the gift, or lose grace through sin. In Luke 1:28, a different case is being made: prior to Jesus’ gifts of grace (through baptism and other sacraments), we see not only that Mary has been given grace (in a singular way, then!) but also that this grace endures in her (which implies sinlessness!).

That’s why we’re not “reading into” the account, but rather, understanding the precise meaning behind Gabriel’s words…

 

[Kmon23]

Yet Greek Orthodox, who would have theologians well versed in biblical Greek, do not necessarily believe in the immaculate conception.

Also awesome profile pic.

 

[Gorgias]

Yet Greek Orthodox, who would have theologians well versed in biblical Greek, do not necessarily believe in the immaculate conception.

I would say that this isn’t really a statement directed at Mary, per se. Rather, since the Orthodox don’t hold to the doctrine of original sin (in the way that the Catholic Church does), the notion that Mary is “preserved from original sin” wouldn’t be something that they’d feel the need to affirm or reject.

Also awesome profile pic.

LOL… thanks!

 

[BartholomewB]

The answer is found in the grammar. κεχαριτωμένη is a participle (so it’s being used as a noun here – “one who…”), but it’s verbal part is in the perfect tense. This means that it indicates an action that has been completed, but whose effects persist through the present (without addressing anything about the future).

Thank you, @Gorgias! I freely confess that the tenses are something I’ve never really grasped. I’m pretty much out of my depth here but I’ll take your word for it!

 

[guanophore]

In a relative instant, a miraculous event can enter the psyche and become folklore.

Can you give an example?

are you saying the only way the immaculate conception can be true is if it was EXPLICITLY taught from the beginning?

It would seem that other concepts, such as the Trinity, and the hypostatic union would also need to be included in this standard. Perhaps the table of contents for the New Testament would also qualify.

…the immaculate conception …the basis for this teaching is the connection between Mary and Eve.

I think this is critical, especially the way the early fathers write about Mary as the new Eve. Eve was created without original sin and was separated from perfect fellowship with God through sin. Mary was also created without sin, and chose to obey God, and remained in a state of Grace. Remember Jesus said “even more blessed is the one who hears the Word of God, and keeps it”. As the Apostles were cleansed by Jesus’ Word, so was His mother.