Mary's immaculate conception and history

[guanophore]

You claim Mary is sinless without confirmation from the word of God.

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

I gave you Paul’s words on this, how sin passed to ALL men

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

This belief is on the level of the Mormons. Nothing in scripture confirms and validates this view. Absolutely nothing.

We read it differently, don’t we? Catholics read scripture from the point of view of those who wrote it. The Children of the Reformation view it from the point of view of those Reformers upon whose faith they base their doctrines.

Absolutely nothing. Unless the CC repents of this, those who invented it will have to stand at the judgment seat of Christ and receive a terrible rebuke.

It is curious that God has waited 2000+ for a prophet such as yourself to tell us this. I guess He could not find anyone in the last two millenia with your level of holiness to warn us about these things? Poor Jesus, He sounded so powerful in the book of Revelation! I guess He came down with a very bad case of the flu?

We know what the Apostles believed and taught by that which is infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

This belief is on the level of the Mormons.

The Mormons say you can believe something is true if you feel a “burning in the bosom” when you read it. Perhaps @tgGodsway is experiencing a “burning in the bosom”?

ritual purity is your invention. It doesn’t say ritual purity. It doesn’t imply ritual purity.

Indeed, it is not an “implication” but clearly stated.

The Woman’s Purification After Childbirth – Highway to Holiness

All I mean is that your belief, much like the Mormons, has no biblical support. It is a huge blunder of theology in my view.

It is a shame that you were not able to be around during any of the first three centuries, tgG. You could have corrected the Fathers on their “huge blunder of theology” comparing Mary to Eve. You could have corrected them about the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the table of contents for the Septuagint. You could have told the Apostles and the disciples they should not be quoting from the Septuagint!

 

[guanophore]

He expressly attributed original sin to Mary in his sermon on Psalms 2. The doctrine was opposed by Chrysostom, Eusebius, Ambrose, Anselm, most of the great medieval schoolmen, including Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Cardinal Cajetan (Luther’s opponent at Augsburg), and also by two of the greatest of the popes, Gregory the great and Innocent III.

Oh, dear, @tgGodsway, you have fallen prey again to plagiarism, and once again to Lorraine Boettner!

http://www.worldwithoutend.info/bbc/books/lb-rc/07_rc-lb.htm

Really, it does not help your case to appeal to such discredited sources, and to appeal to all these Catholics, who believed the opposite fo what Boettner claims, just makes you look sleazy in your scholarship.

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

I gave you solid biblical evidence, but it means nothing to you, so I thought I’d speak your own language, but even that is not enough. To me this is a spiritual bondage. Never mind.

No, tgG, you have not offered "“biblical evidence”. What you have asserted is that, for what we claim to be true of Mary to be true, it must explicitly be stated in Scripture. Along the lines that Trinity, hypostatic union, worshipping on Sunday, and the table of contents for the Scripture itself are explicit.

I can assure you that nothing published by Lorraine Boettner is “your own language”. Such a person with abject hatred for Catholicism, bigotry, and abysmal scholarship will never be pursuasive to an educated Catholic. Neither will you if you continue to appeal to him. I agree, you are in spiritual bondage! So would be anyone who appeals to such a source!

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Look, I am not out on a limb here. Even Augustine, who died in 430 ad and who was admittedly the greatest theologian of the ancient Church, contradicts the idea of immaculate conception, for he expressly declares that Mary’s flesh was “flesh of sin.”

Look, I don’t know where you get your info. Both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are canonized Saints in the Church. Augustine and Aquinas never denied Mary was in need of being saved from original sin, Mary needed a savior also as she proclaimed.

God just graced her full of His saving Grace in her immaculate conception, for nothing is impossible for God.

Babies are delivered from original sin at their infant baptism. Here is St. Thomas Aquinas to sum it up for you, “For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Lk. 1:35: ‘The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.’ But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb” (Summa III: 27).

Thus the Church proclaims the Immaculate Conception and heaven confirmed this doctrine with signs and wonders. The faith in the Immaculate conception was clarified and declared long after Aquinas and Augustine. But there writings confirm a deep faith in the Blessed Virgin’s Grace that removed original sin in the womb at conception or before birth.The Church finally confirmed the doctrine that does not contradict any of the Saints faith in Mary being saved by God from original sin.
peace be with you

 

[Gorgias]

ritual purity is your invention. It doesn’t say ritual purity.

No, it says “uncleanliness”. You can find it in Leviticus 12 (which is the passage that is at hand), but you can also find it elsewhere in Leviticus.

It doesn’t imply ritual purity.

OK… but your case is that it refers to ‘sin’. Please find ‘sin’ in the description of Leviticus 12, then. And, if ‘sin’, then please explain what sin it is.

If Mary were sinless from birth, she would have no impurities or feel the need to offer the sacrifice in the first place.

The offering was prescribed by the Mosaic covenant, in order to be ‘cleansed’ following birth.

We can dance this dance all night long but it won’t change what is obvious in the passage.

I know. That’s what makes it sad. It’s obvious, but you refuse to admit it.

 

[Gorgias]

Look, I am not out on a limb here.

Yeah, you really are.

Even Augustine, who died in 430 ad and who was admittedly the greatest theologian of the ancient Church, contradicts the idea of immaculate conception

This is the same Augustine who claimed that Mary was sinless? I think you misunderstand what Augustine is saying…

, for he expressly declares that Mary’s flesh was “flesh of sin.” (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii, c24)

You really need to check out your citations before you just copy and paste them. He doesn’t talk about “flesh of sin” in chapter 24; in that chapter, he’s talking about Paul. However, he does talk about it in chapter 38. There, he writes:

[Jesus], therefore, alone having become man, but still continuing to be God, never had any sin, nor did he assume a flesh of sin, though born of a maternal flesh of sin. For what He then took of flesh, He either cleansed in order to take it, or cleansed by taking it. His virgin mother, therefore, whose conception was not according to the law of sinful flesh (in other words, not by the excitement of carnal concupiscence), but who merited by her faith that the holy seed should be framed within her, He formed in order to choose her, and chose in order to be formed from her.

Notice what he’s saying: “flesh of sin” means 'flesh born of sin". Jesus is not “flesh of sin”. And Mary, who was born of sexual intercourse (i.e., “of sin”), was not conceived “according to the law of sinful flesh.” So, this doesn’t speak of Mary having sin, it speaks of intercourse (i.e., sin), that gives rise to new life. And, as we can see here, Augustine goes out of his way to clarify that Mary isn’t born “according to the law of sinful flesh.”

He also said, “Mary springing from Adam, died because of sin; and the flesh of our Lord, derived from Mary, died to take away sin.”

Would you mind providing me the name of the essay that makes this claim? I tried to Google it, and although I found plenty of Protestant claims of this quote, I couldn’t find one that provides a citation for it. Thanks!

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, what kind of debate is this?.. this is a poor argument.

No… it follows from the claim you’re attempting to make. If ‘all’ means ‘every human’, then you need to be able to demonstrate that every human commits personal sin. From the perspective of simple logical argument, all I have to do is present a counter-example to your claim… which I’ve done.

Paul’s doctrine was speaking not to specifics such as babies, but general in nature.

So… you’re claiming that it’s a ‘general’ claim that doesn’t hold in each and every case? We’re in agreement, then: humans are ‘generally’ sinful, but that assertion doesn’t imply that ‘each human’ has sinned. You’re more Catholic than you give yourself credit for.

Why skirt what the holy Spirit is saying to the Church?

I’m not. You’re making my case for me. Thanks!

 

[mcq72]

Double standard much?

Not sure apples to oranges…we do not say Ps are unanimously consented by luther, calvin and zwingli sure but it seems like one trying to have his cake and eat it too…like unanimous has not the common meaning when used by CC, that it needs “explanation”, like forcing its favor

 

[Autumn-Smoke]

The Assumption of Mary means she must have been conceived without original sin

The Assumption of Mary requires that she not have original sin

Following along this line of thinking, wouldn’t this also mean that both Enoch and Elijah would also have to be free from original sin?

Don’t think I’d agree.

Looking for anyone’s comment.

 

[Benadam]

Benadam:

The Assumption of Mary means she must have been conceived without original sin

The Assumption of Mary requires that she not have original sin

Following along this line of thinking, wouldn’t this also mean that both Enoch and Elijah would also have to be free from original sin?

Don’t think I’d agree.

Looking for anyone’s comment.

Not if you consider that the state of life Jesus entered into transcended the state of life that Enoch and Elijah were taken up to.

In the light of the Transfiguration the disciples could see Moses and Elijah. They were seen in conversation with Jesus. They were discussing the coming crucifixion and ‘exodus’. This indicates that the scene isn’t some retroactive reality outside of time. They were discussing an exodus. A transfer of human life from one place to another. From slavery to freedom. The disciples saw the highest state of human life in the light of the Transfiguration. There was a higher state yet to be. That would be a state of life that only Jesus could access with His Sacrifice. His Resurrection transcended the state of life that Enoch and Elijah were taken up to. Original sin is an obstacle to entering the state of life Jesus opened but not the state of life Enoch and Elijah enjoyed.

 

[Leferdion]

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.

Beautiful response!

 

[susanlo]

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?

No, I don’t mean that that is the only way it can be true. I am wondering how and when it was first believed. It seems that the Christians in the first 200-300 years taught that Christ alone was sinless. We see quotes from Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and others in post #19 that reflect this. As we saw by our exchange and others, by the 5th century Ambrose and Augustine were claiming that Mary received graces to prevent her from actual sin, but that only Jesus was exempt from their version of Original Sin. I don’t know much about history after this time. I am seeing in this thread that even at the time of Thomas Aquinas there was no uniform belief that Mary was preserved from sin since the moment of conception. Aquinas disagreed with this teaching (post #24), but I think he was disagreeing with others who held that belief at that time. It seems like the idea was forming then. I would like to know more about how this information was discovered to be true. Why do Roman Catholics claim that the teaching is necessary for salvation when so many early “Saints” did not believe in her immaculate conception?

 

[susanlo]

Look, I am not out on a limb here. Even Augustine, who died in 430 ad and who was admittedly the greatest theologian of the ancient Church, contradicts the idea of immaculate conception, for he expressly declares that Mary’s flesh was “flesh of sin.” (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii, c24) He also said, “Mary springing from Adam, died because of sin; and the flesh of our Lord, derived from Mary, died to take away sin.”

He expressly attributed original sin to Mary in his sermon on Psalms 2. The doctrine was opposed by Chrysostom, Eusebius, Ambrose, Anselm, most of the great medieval schoolmen, including Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Cardinal Cajetan (Luther’s opponent at Augsburg), and also by two of the greatest of the popes, Gregory the great and Innocent III.

I am not able to find those quotes in those writings. Maybe I am overlooking them. But this does sound a lot like what Augustine wrote in his “Exposition of Psalm 35.”

For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the Flesh of the Lord which was of Mary died to put away sin.

Chapter 14 - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801035.htm

 

[kainosktisis]

I would argue that it is implicit in Scripture - just like the Holy Trinity is implicit in Scripture as it does point to it.

If Jesus were to take on flesh from any other woman, I would imagine that either Christ would take on defiled sinful flesh (& Scripture tells us that that nothing impure can approach Him), or that person wouldn’t survive carrying God in them in an unsanctified state.

I take the example of the Ark of the Covenant, since it was earthly yet made holy to God’s specification as His throne on earth among His people. Housed within it were the Tablets with the 10 Commandments on them; a jar of manna; & Aaron’s staff that had budded, the proof of God choosing him as High Priest. It Es so holy that anyone unauthorized to look at it or touch it died instantly, & it was housed in the Temple in Jerusalem in the Holy of Holies, where the High Priest would enter once a year on Yom Kippur to make atonement for his people.

Fast forward to the Blessed Virgin, chosen by God to bring forth the Messiah, Jesus, Who is God the Son, the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity - Whom Scripture affirms as Our Living Bread from heaven; the Word Made Flesh ushering in the New Covenant; and Our Great High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. The enmity between the serpent & the woman & Her Seed (born of a woman so that no human male as father of this Child is given in the description of this supernatural birth) promising the Coming of the Messiah in Genesis points to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Eve listened to a bad angel & sin entered the world bringing death. The Blessed Virgin listened to the Angel Gabriel, gave her fiat, cooperating with God so that our redemption & new life through Jesus was was made possible. She was preserved from sin to make His birth possible, so she was saved by God in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.

She would’ve had to have been without sin that Christ would unite Himself to her. She stated that her soul magnifies the Lord in the Magnificat (Luke 1). No other person has made such a claim. Her life is inextricably tied to Christ’s in a way like no other as His Mother.

Adam & Eve were created without sin. Enoch was said to have walked with God so that the Lord took him & he was no more. Elijah was carried up to heaven. Nothing impure can enter into His Presence.

 

[stpurl]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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. The truth (as per Scripture and the ‘full of grace’ passage) was always there, and the understanding became clearer with time.

Also please remember when St. Augustine lived; the very end of the 4th century. This was, if you recall, only 50 years or so after Christianity became officially an ‘accepted’ rather than a persecuted religion and it was also at the same time as the Arian heresy. St. Augustine thus was dealing with in essence a major heresy regarding the nature of Jesus Christ (so his works were primarily dealing with refuting that heresy and attempting to correct a heresy that had affected something like 80% of the entire Christian world!)

And in the first 300 years or so of Christianity, considering that the Church was by and large ‘underground’ and unable to be united physically, it’s not surprising that some groups might get confused. Heck, we saw it was happening in Scripture, St. Paul mentioned it. Did the ‘wrong teachings’ he found then suddenly STOP for the next 300 years? Of course not. So any ‘wrong’ teachings were part of the ‘growing pains’ of a new Church.

Like I’d said before, the earliest protestants like Luther and Calvin believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but a huge number of protestant sects which trace themselves back to the early Lutherans and Calvinists do not.’

By your logic, those ‘early protestants’ who believed in the Perpetual Virginity then, but which is not taught ‘now’ in most protestant churches, could not have been ‘real protestants’ since they did not hold a ‘21st’ century’ belief and understanding back in the 16th century. . .

 

[tgGodsway]

I would argue that it is implicit in Scripture - just like the Holy Trinity is implicit in Scripture as it does point to it.

On both points here the argument is weak. Where is it implied in scripture that Mary had a special miracle at conception resulting in a sinless state?.. only the opposite is true. Secondly, the Trinity is not implicit. Sure, in the O.T. it may be, but in the N.T. it is not. Jesus said, “go therefore and baptizer them in the name of Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” John said, "in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. Luke shows the many God-attributes of the Spirit, such as Acts 5:3 "but Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit…” or…
"the holy Spirit said, “now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work…” Acts 13;2

The first century Church knew about the concept of trinity long before the CC put her stamp on it.

But, again, you cannot begin with this premise to make your points because it is weak and unconvincing.

 

[mcq72]

His Resurrection transcended the state of life that Enoch and Elijah were taken up to. Original sin is an obstacle to entering the state of life Jesus opened but not the state of life Enoch and Elijah enjoyed.

I think i understand you…not sure, but Enoch and for sure Elijah went “up”, as if to heaven…most think that Abraham’s bosom or paradise , the place of righteous before gates of heaven were opened up by jesus at Calvary/resurrection, was “down” in sheol/hades

 

[tgGodsway]

If Jesus were to take on flesh from any other woman, I would imagine that either Christ would take on defiled sinful flesh

On what bases?

 

[mcq72]

So any ‘wrong’ teachings were part of the ‘growing pains’ of a new Church.

Interesting in terms of infallibility teaching, and that this would mean the gates of hell prevailed to strict interpreters of such(that CC never,ever taught anything wrong doctrinally) , if you had wrong teaching in parts of the CC…but i agree with you that of course some aspects in some parts areas of CC could be “confused” or "wrong’…just that if it can happen as part of growing pains as you suggest (prevailing with truth at later, more mature date) can it not also happen as part of mid life crisis, or old age crisis(awaiting some future correction or further maturity)?

 

[tgGodsway]

The enmity between the serpent & the woman & Her Seed (born of a woman so that no human male as father of this Child is given in the description of this supernatural birth) promising the Coming of the Messiah in Genesis points to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Yes, I’ve heard this argument before. Your mistake here is probably because of your fixation on Mary to be that savior.

Genesis 3:15 was prophetic in that it pointed, not to Mary, but to the Church who is also in feminine gender.
"And I(God) will put enmity (hatred) between you (Satan) and the women (the Church) and between your offspring (Satan’s offspring=the family of Adam) and her (the Church’s) offspring (which is a spiritual offspring.=you must be born again)

He (Satan) shall bruise (the Church’s) head. (Christ was bruised fulfilling Isaiah 53,) and you shall bruise His heel."

There is nothing here pointing to a special miracle of a sinless state.
Again, this is an example where oral tradition and holy scripture disagree. I go with the scriptures.

 

[mcq72]

If Jesus were to take on flesh from any other woman, I would imagine that either Christ would take on defiled sinful flesh

There are no Messianic prophecies about nature of that woman. Every jewish virgin maiden, in the line of david (outright or by marriage) thought it could be her, especially if she be in from bethlehem…nothing about any immaculate conception, notwithstanding any cleansing by jewish faith and ritual, even to be born of God, regenerated in spirit, not at enmity with God anymore etc, believers in the promises of God, even a future calvary, though veiled in understanding/revelation