Mary's immaculate conception and history

[mcq72]

ut that’s where the problem comes in: if He was no different than the rest of us, then that means He would need saving since He would’ve taken on sinful fles

So He was righteuos thru Mary???

Besides, my point stands either way. Christ flesh was sinless by either his own immaculate conseption, or as you say, by Marys, then of course His…many say the latter is fitting, that Christ flesh should be in sinless flesh…i am saying the former is possible (His immaculate conception, by the Holy Ghost), And it was fitting that He be carried in a woman fulfilling all prophecies,sanctified to that end via faith and obedience to the one true Judaism…which has no mention of IC…that Christ is a seperate being, apart from Mary, as any embryonic child is…the holiness and purity come from the Holy Spirit touching, making the conception (fertilized egg/zygote etc)…a perfect womb/mother is not required nor prophecied, and my opinionated point, not fitting either given His mission to touch and heal fallen, sinful flesh, even His mother…counter intuitive to His mission

 

[Benadam]

Besides, my point stands either way.Christ flesh was sinless by eithet his own immaculate conseption,

Except the Catholic Church doesn’t teach the Immaculate Conception was Necessary for the Incarnation. It could have happened through sinfull flesh. God found it more fitting that His Mother be Blessed and sinless.

 

[mcq72]

Except the Catholic Church doesn’t teach the Immaculate Conception was Necessary for the Incarnation. It could have happened through sinfull flesh. God found it more fitting that His Mother be Blessed and sinless.

Yes thank you…that is why i use the word “fitting” …that it was fitting that His mother would be like you and me , fallen flesh, though justified and sanctified thru faith in His promises…her via grace and faith in the jewish promises looking forward to Christ, and we looking backwards via grace and faith in the church declarations of Christ

Yes both ways are possible to God…yet as an early father once wrote (forgot context…but it is applicable),

“Let us not suppose that because can do something, that He did.”

 

[Benadam]

Yes thank you…that is why i use the word “fitting” …that it was fitting that His mother would be like you and me , fallen flesh, though justified and sanctified thru faith in His promises…her via grace and faith in the jewish promises looking forward to Christ, and we looking backwards via grace and faith in the church declarations of Christ

I can’t disagree. It is fitting as it means by the work of the Holy Spirit Mary is a person who fits the types and shadows as the New Woman who fulfills the true end of the person who is the Original Woman. The Holy Spirit found it fitting that Mary is a type of Ark of the Covenant that Carried the Testimony within it. It is fitting in that the Old is revealed by the New and the New is hidden in the Old.

Edit to correct: Mary isn’t a type of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant is a type of Mary.

 

[mcq72]

That statement comes from a Protestant understanding of the Word of God and how it is expressed by the Church.The appearances of Mary would not be necessarily considered Divine Revelation. They are private revelation and not necessary to believe.

Yes thank you…it is my understanding that the pope receives much (name removed by moderator)ut from his bishops and scholars/ theologians etc…also that there are exhortations by said clergy, even one group advocating for ,and some against a decree…while Mary appearances may themselves may have their seperate “findings”, it was suggested that they may have influenced or further impassioned, any exhortation for the decree…not sure…would have to read further …also not suggesting pope did not say he prayed and received divine revelation via HS on matter

 

[Benadam]

Yes thank you…it is my understanding that the pope receives much (name removed by moderator)ut from his bishops and scholars/ theologians etc…also that there are exhortations by said clergy, even one group advocating for ,and some against a decree…while Mary appearances may themselves may have their seperate “findings”, it was suggested that they may have influenced or further impassioned, any exhortation for the decree…not sure…would have to read further

True what you say. I would add.
It isn’t the place of a Pope to change the teaching of the Church or introduce new belief but to guard the faith. Our Faith is developmental in that it is always seeking a deeper understanding of what has always been believed. Some claims of deeper understanding are in fact new beliefs. The Immaculate Conception is a deeper understanding that the Pope found a need to make dogma. Most likely it was a prophetic inspiration of the times. The belief in Mary needed guarded at this time in history. easy to see why now.

 

[Benadam]

that it was fitting that His mother would be like you and me , fallen flesh,

I didn’t read carefully enough @mcq72. If this were true then Mary would not be fitting because then all the types in the Old Covenant would not be revealed by the New or the New hidden in the old. This is the reason the types in the OT are revealed less by the NT to those who think it impossible for Mary to be who the Catholic Church teaches she is

 

[kainosktisis]

So He was righteuos thru Mary???

No, not in the least: He is God: His Blessed Mother was created by Him & for Him. My point is that as God, only that which is pure would serve as an appropriate vessel for Him to unite Himself to mankind in such an intimate fashion. The holiness of God is what I emphasize, but His Blessed Mother would magnify Him. The verses in Romans come to mind about God making vessels of clay for noble as well as common purposes. The Biblical examples of the Kohathite priests who handled the sanctuary duties further emphasizes to me the purity/holiness of the vessels used. So it is reasonable to me that God would create a new woman (New Eve) full of grace in anticipation of His Coming.

The point I’m trying to make is that based on Biblical examples, God’s presence always seems to require the utmost holiness because He is holy. It doesn’t do to put that which is pure in something impure.

 

[mcq72]

I didn’t read carefully enough @mcq72. If this were true then Mary would not be fitting because then all the types in the Old Covenant would not be revealed by the New or the New hidden in the old.

The central figure in the bible, both new and old, foreshadow and fulfilled, is Jesus Christ. Jesus is the New Ark, God’s full presence in the flesh, we begotten of Him , the New Adam…no new Eve is needed for this, but yes a woman who carries and helps fulfil the promise, the last in a chain of seed, from Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah, Abraham, David etc.

As a side note, it is not a woman, man thing, an adam or eve(new) thing , for in heaven we are not as given in marriage, but as the angels…Jesus is true end for all men and women.

 

[mcq72]

The belief in Mary needed guarded at this time in history. easy to see why now.

not sure what you mean, for everything I have said has been said before, even by catholics, for centuries.

 

[mcq72]

Here is part of papal decree 1854 , i believe:

“Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.”

An idol does NOT need to be worshipped to be an idol. I keep hearing it preached all the time that anything that gets in the way of full communion with God is an idol/false god, that is we should be able to converse with God , one on one , as did Adam and Eve in the garden. Petitioning is one thing , but “guidance” (beyond example), “protection” sure goes beyond petitioning, and sounds like the Job of the Comforter. Again, that may not be worship, but misplaces what is due to God only, which some may see as idolatry. Yes to praying to her if you want, but when she starts answering back, as in guidance, that is something else. Mary indeed seems to be the number four person in the universe, next to the Triune Godhead.

Though Mariology is very well defined and layed out, even quite beautiful, can anyone see how it is quite unprecedented in biblical history ? yes , there were queen mothers in history, some good , some bad, but to then place the her above a David or Moses or Abraham…we here many times that God will do something for David’s sake, or Abraham’s sake but where are they in this picture ? Does this sharpen or dull the Decree that we now also sit in heavenly places, and can boldly go before the throne (much like a few OT queens , no ?).

PS…I and others probably are no better in truly seeking God first or at all when a trial hits, or when guidance and or protection is needed, or when fear needs dispelling…we all have our idols, our comfort "foods’’ while the Bread of Life can be personally, directly supped with, even eaten (and He is jealous, often of good things, that are not the best things, and He waits for us).

 

[kainosktisis]

Concerning the “Gebirah” in the OT (from Wikipedia):

Gebirah - Wikipedia

“In the Hebrew Bible, under some Davidic kings, the gebirah, the “Great Lady”, usually the Mother of the King, held great power as advocate with the king. In 1 Kings 2:20, Solomon said to his Mother Bathsheba, seated on a throne at his right, “Make your request, Mother, for I will not refuse you.” William G. Most sees here a sort of type of Mary.[1] The position of the queen mother (gebirah) was a privilege of the highest honour and authority for a woman in the Kingdom of Judah.”

“Gebirah” Strong’s Concordance from Bible Hub:

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1377.htm

Among the definitions are lady, queen, mother, queen-mother, or mistress.

The Blessed Virgin was a royal descendant of King David & the Mother of Our Lord. I would tend to disagree with the position that Jesus is the New Ark since the Ark was an earthly object that served as a mercy seat/throne of God among His people. The Blessed Virgin, however, bore within her womb God the Son, the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity - Our Lord, Jesus Christ, Who is the Word Made Flesh, Our Great High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, & Our Living Bread from heaven. The Blessed Virgin is the creation of Our Lord just as the Ark was earthly, but the Ark was so holy that it was housed in the Holy of Holies. How much purer still would the Mother of Our Lord be to carry in her God the Son…

 

[mcq72]

I would tend to disagree with the position that Jesus is the New Ark since the Ark was an earthly object that served as a mercy seat/throne of God among His people

Well , the Ark is God’s presence in OT,an earthly object containing Him, just as an earthly body, flesh, made of earthly elements like the Ark , containing Him.

"that I may dwell in their midst”

There I will meet with you … on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you” …Ex 25

the ark served as the place of the presence of God…tell me again how Jesus is not this New Ark ?

 

[Benadam]

The Jews would agree, at least the ones that stayed blind to Jesus as Messiah. Don’t we know his mother how can he be the Messiah?

 

[mcq72]

Make your request, Mother, for I will not refuse you.” William G. Most sees here a sort of type of Mary.[1] The position of the queen mother (gebirah) was a privilege of the highest honour and authority for a woman in the Kingdom of Judah.”

No one denies offices and positions and relationships to power, just that can one go too far with foreshadowing ?

I mean by papal decree we can go to Mary as the perfect intercessor, but I would not use the 1 kings 2:20 as a foreshadow. The queen mother petitioned, interceded for Adonijah, and it went very bad for Adonijah:

"Then King Solomon swore by the LORD: “May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if Adonijah does not pay with his life for this request!..Adonijah shall be put to death today!..So King Solomon gave orders to Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and he struck down Adonijah and he died.” 1 Kings 2:25

 

[mcq72]

The Jews would agree, at least the ones that stayed blind to Jesus as Messiah. Don’t we know his mother how can he be the Messiah?

Agree with what ? But indeed may we all not be blind to what gets between us and the Lord, as i posted in # 174, yet if we cast out the speck , even 2x4, in our own eyes, then help others.

 

[mcq72]

So it is reasonable to me that God would create a new woman (New Eve) full of grace in anticipation of His Coming.

Of course, we differ in just how He does that , and a little bit the why also.

What we know is that she was full of grace. grace can be twofold.

First the grace to be made holy (and never sin again…kind of unbiblical on this side of eternity). The second possibility is to receive merit, to bear the christ child, despite being fallen flesh…I mean that is the ultimate grace to be full with, to have Him inside us/her.

But yes we are cleansed, made anew, first, both in OT and NT. That is, there is fallen flesh dead in sins, and their is fallen flesh, reconciled unto God (forgiven, justified,sanctified but not yet glorified) possible in both OT and NT. Do not downplay Judaism, the OT, and its cleansing regenerating power via grace and faith. Do not call unclean what God has cleansed, OT and NT. Mary was not a pagan, a Roman, a Philistine, but a believer in the one true faith of the time, just like ourselves…they had the salvation God and the salvation message, beginning at the garden. This is partly why I don’t understand all the fuss of the IC, as if sin forgiveness and new inner man, holiness never existed before NT. I mean somehow Enoch and Elijah and Moses were taken, the rest of the saints were in Paradise, and Job was “perfect”, and John the baptist seemed to be quickened in his mothers womb. Don’t want to take it out of jewish context.

What if things were reversed for discussion sake. What if Catholicism was the first covenant. How would it sound to us for newcomers to say that baptism, confirmation, and sacraments were not quite enough to make one worthy to bring forth the Messiah, that one would need a better washing to be worthy to have Him inside us?

 

[susanlo]

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.

We have seen multiple quotes from Augustine in this thread. It seems very clear that Augustine believed that Mary might have been free from actual sin, but that she clearly was affected by original sin. This passage clearly shows that he believed that Mary was born tainted with sin (“flesh of sin”), but what Jesus took from her “He either cleansed in order to take it, or cleansed by taking it.”

These are the quotes we have reviewed so far:

Chapter 42 [XXXVI.]— The Blessed Virgin Mary May Have Lived Without Sin. None of the Saints Besides Her Without Sin
He then enumerates those who not only lived without sin, but are described as having led holy lives — Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the Son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was espoused, John. And he adds the names of some women —Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her, he says, we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it. We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour 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.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm

14… So then the sin of the Lord is that which was caused by sin; because He assumed flesh, of the same lump which had deserved death by sin. 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.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801035.htm

Continued…

 

[susanlo]

Part 2

Chapter 47 [XLI.]— Sentences from Ambrose in Favour 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.

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

Chapter 38 [XXIV.]— What Benefit Has Been Conferred on Us by the Incarnation of the Word; Christ’s Birth in the Flesh, Wherein It is Like and Wherein Unlike Our Own Birth. …
He, 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.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15012.htm

I don’t understand how somebody can read these and take from this that Augustine believed in Mary’s immaculate conception. I guess each of us will just have to read these and make our own conclusions.

 

[mcq72]

though born (Jesus) of a maternal flesh of sin.

That is pretty big statement…most here have been saying the opposite…thanks for your “study”