Mary's Immaculate conception

[campion]

The Immaculate Conception states that Mary was born without Original Sin (hence, sinless).

Does it go further to state that Mary lived her entire life without sin? Isn’t Jesus the only person to have never sinned?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

campion:

The Immaculate Conception states that Mary was born without Original Sin (hence, sinless).

Does it go further to state that Mary lived her entire life without sin? Isn’t Jesus the only person to have never sinned?

According to Ott:

In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

A teaching proximate to the faith is one regarded as generally true, but not finally promulgated by the Church. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

 

[blessedrosary]

Scott Waddell:

According to Ott:

A teaching proximate to the faith is one regarded as generally true, but not finally promulgated by the Church. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

I think it was declared an infallible part of our faith during the first Vatican Council.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

blessedrosary:

I think it was declared an infallible part of our faith during the first Vatican Council.

The Catechism certainly teaches it.

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

 

[BrianH]

You see these quotes from time to time on the web…I do not know if they are all correct, I tried to look and found it difficult to find out.
Anybody know?

Augustine Bishop of Hippo. “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”

Tertullian 215 AD “God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God” (The Soul 41:3

Clement of Alexandria “The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin.”

Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) "The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate. " (sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.)

Pope Gelasius (492 a.d.) “It belongs alone to the immaculate lamb to have no sin at all.” (Gellasii papae dicta, vol. 4, col 1241, Paris, 1671)

Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump.,sermon 2)

BrianH

 

[blessedrosary]

BrianH:

You see these quotes from time to time on the web…I do not know if they are all correct, I tried to look and found it difficult to find out.
Anybody know?

Augustine Bishop of Hippo. “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”

Tertullian 215 AD “God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God” (The Soul 41:3

Clement of Alexandria “The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin.”

Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) "The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate. " (sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.)

Pope Gelasius (492 a.d.) “It belongs alone to the immaculate lamb to have no sin at all.” (Gellasii papae dicta, vol. 4, col 1241, Paris, 1671)

Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump.,sermon 2)

BrianH

All those quotes would be great, exept they do not mean anything as far as sacred tradition. Papal infallibility, i am sure, is the approach you are taking to prove other dogmas wrong. However it only applies when the pope is in union with all the bishops and the church. The words of the Popes that you quote are not infallible unless officially stated so. Therefore, your argument is inconclusive.

 

[BrianH]

Blessedrosary,
I am not trying to prove anything. I am not trying to argue anything either… That is not the spirit of my posts. I am trying to ascertain what is true…subtle difference but powerful.
The OQ was why do Protestants not believe and I am adding some history…maybe if the quotes are correct to the mix. As a Protestant for lack of better words, I am willing to consider tradition…the use of tradition is biblical so to speak…Papal Infallibility has no sway for people who do not hold to that tenet…the quotes are not even from people who were all Popes.
Thanks
BrianH

 

[blessedrosary]

BrianH:

Blessedrosary,
I am not trying to prove anything. I am not trying to argue anything either… That is not the spirit of my posts. I am trying to ascertain what is true…subtle difference but powerful.
The OQ was why do Protestants not believe and I am adding some history…maybe if the quotes are correct to the mix. As a Protestant for lack of better words, I am willing to consider tradition…the use of tradition is biblical so to speak…Papal Infallibility has no sway for people who do not hold to that tenet…the quotes are not even from people who were all Popes.
Thanks
BrianH

My bad, i didn't mean to offend anyone who has different beliefs than me. So I am sincerely sorry if I did, or seemed to reply in an deffensive way. I probably shouldn't argue with you considering that I am asking you for your perspective on the issue.

 

[Shibboleth]

I think there should be some clarification here.

Saying that Mary was born Immaculate not quite equal to Mary was born without sin. She most definitely was but so is everyone in a sense.

All of us are born maculate save Mary, Jesus, Adam, and Eve. Maculate means stain – we are born with the stain of original sin… that does not mean however that we have sinned. We carry with us the stain of Adam (its effects and consequences) but we are not guilty of Adam’s sin. Augustine made a mistake on this I am afraid by thinking we all sinned ‘in’ Adam so we are all guilty of sin – he should have studied his Greek a little better.

The stain of original sin carries with it concupiscence which is our internal drive to want to sin but concupiscence is not in and of itself a sin. There are many things that come with our immaculate fallen nature – such as that we are born at enmity with God.

In the Protoevangelium of James which was written very shortly after the death of Christ it talks about Mary not experiencing any sort of pain at childbirth. Now if this is a true document it shows that Mary most certainly did not have original sin because childbirth pain is a consequence of our stain – but, even if you do not think that this is a true document it still shows that people right after the Apostolic Age believed that Mary was born immaculate.

The reason that Protestants have a problem with Mary’s Immaculate Conception is that it appears no where in the Scriptures. The Virginity, Holiness of Mary, the fact that she is the Arc of the New Covenant, and that she is the Gate are all there but nothing that speaks of the fact that she was born without original sin. The best thing that we have to go on is “Full of Grace” – if Mary was “Full of Grace” that is a pretty good sign that she has nothing between her and God.

Protestants also do not want to elevate Mary above or to the equal of Jesus in that she did not need a Savior. To that throw out the name Elijah and have them explain that situation.

 

[VociMike]

MusicMan:

That’s the paradox. If He can create a person without sin, why doesn’t He? If He can make Mary without sin, He didn’t need to sacrifice His son, He just needed to create man sinless. If He can do it for Mary, He can do it for all of us.

OK, but I’d call it a mystery rather than a paradox.

As to making us all without sin, He did that for Adam and Eve, and that didn’t stop them from sinning. The angels were made without sin, but many of them sinned. There is something in our very nature, even in our perfect, unfallen nature, that is susceptible to sin, to excessive “I want!”. I think God has chosen a particular way to bring us to overcome this part of our nature, or bring it under control.

God did not “need” to sacrifice His Son. He makes the rules, He gives the prophecies and the law. So it is not that He “needed” to send Christ, but rather that this was the most perfect way to achieve the goal that God had from before the foundation of the world. Christ is not a backup plan, He is the plan.

BTW, for an interesting “what if” story about the fall that didn’t happen, read the 2nd volume of C.S. Lewis’ science fiction trilogy. I think the title is “Perelandra”.

 

[seabird3579]

blessedrosary:

What Protestants fail to realize, is that we Catholics look as the immaculate conception as a GRACE given by God. By no merit of her own did Mary recieve this grace…

God is God Almighty. He can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants, however He wants to. He is not subject to our judgment or approval process. We humbly must accept His sometimes mysterious ways and humbly realize that there are some things we just will not understand in this lifetime. One difficulty that Protestants will always run into is their attempt to “make sense” out of God’s mysteries. They try to justify everything by Scripture. And, although Scripture backs up all that God does, it doesn’t tell All of what God does.

I leave you all with my morning meditation as food for thought:

Matthew 22:41-45

“Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord is my Lord, Sit at my right hand, til I put thy enemies under thy feet’? If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him anymore questions.”

Conclusion: Though Jesus is Mary’s Lord and Savior, she also can be immaculately conceived by Divine Plan.

 

[MonicaC]

seabird3579:

God is God Almighty. He can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants, however He wants to. He is not subject to our judgment or approval process. We humbly must accept His sometimes mysterious ways and humbly realize that there are some things we just will not understand in this lifetime. One difficulty that Protestants will always run into is their attempt to “make sense” out of God’s mysteries. They try to justify everything by Scripture. And, although Scripture backs up all that God does, it doesn’t tell All of what God does.

I leave you all with my morning meditation as food for thought:

Matthew 22:41-45

“Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, “What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord is my Lord, Sit at my right hand, til I put thy enemies under thy feet’? If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?” And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him anymore questions.”

Conclusion: Though Jesus is Mary’s Lord and Savior, she also can be immaculately conceived by Divine Plan.

I love what you wrote here!

Something came into mind as i was reading this. Now bear with me this might not make sense but I thought I would share it.

Mary was conceived with out sin. Now most of us Catholics can go back to the OT and see how this is true by reading about the the ARK of covenant. and how no unclean being could be in the presence of God.

Now Protestants have a hard time and will normally say something along the lines that if God could make one person ie Mary without sin why couldn’t he do this for all of us? Now that made me think that although we should just accept that God is God and he of course will ultimately decide what is going to happen to fit his plans most of us have a hard time doing this.

Mary was born without sin to help his plan to show all of us what is in store for all of us.

Now to question this plan would be the same as saying Hey God now my pet dog has such a great sense of smell, I really wish I could do that, in fact if all humans could have that great sense of smell than we would be so much better off. Now I really don’t think that it is fair that you chose in your great wisdom to only award this wonderful gift to them and not us.

Now most people would agree that God obvious had a plan in store when he gave dogs the ability to have an incredible sense of smell. So how come we cannot do the same with the IM conception?

I hope I made sense, it was just a thought that just came to me.

 

[BrianH]

The God can do anything God wants…I agree …that aside.
You have a non-Catholic, me, who does not see it in scripture, who sees a mixed tradition about this, if you were in MY shoes…why should I believe it? I ask this as nice as possible
BrianH

 

[cazayoux]

BrianH:

…It then shifts to defending this
by looking at tradition…and you are aware I am sure how unconvincing that is to us.
Thanks
BrianH

uh huh … that pesky Catholic Tradition went and gave us worship on Sunday rather than the Sabbath … and this Immaculate Conception thing … and that compilation of Gospels and letters we call the New Testament.

Why is Church on Sunday and the New Testament Canon an acceptable Catholic Tradition, but not the Immaculate Conception? If you follow some Catholic Traditions, by what basis do you decided which?

michel

 

[blessedrosary]

BrianH:

The God can do anything God wants…I agree …that aside.
You have a non-Catholic, me, who does not see it in scripture, who sees a mixed tradition about this, if you were in MY shoes…why should I believe it? I ask this as nice as possible
BrianH

My job is not to try to convert your beliefs to mine. I don’t even expect you to see my point of view on this issue based on the Catholic perspective of Sacred Tradition. I, as a Catholic, cannot see one reason why I should find biblical proof of the immaculate conception. If I were to look at the bible as superior to Sacred Tradition, then my faith in the Church would be very poor. I dont expect you to believe this and there is no reason you should if you believe in Sola Scripture. Having said that, if you were in my shoes you would see the immaculate conception as something that makes perfectly logical sense in God’s plan of our salvation.
By the way, what IS the so-called mixed tradition about this. In the Catholic Church, there is no contradictions in Sacred Tradition. Please Explain, Thank you

 

[blessedrosary]

cazayoux:

uh huh … that pesky Catholic Tradition went and gave us worship on Sunday rather than the Sabbath … and this Immaculate Conception thing … and that compilation of Gospels and letters we call the New Testament.

Why is Church on Sunday and the New Testament Canon an acceptable Catholic Tradition, but not the Immaculate Conception? If you follow some Catholic Traditions, by what basis do you decided which?

michel

Oh yeah, how can Protestants follow the bible as completely infallible if they dont follow tradition. Remember, the Bible WAS Tradition for up to 200 years after the death of Christ. The Gospels were not even written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. AND, The whole New testament was compiled BY the Catholic Church. Sounds convincing to me

 

[BrianH]

cazayoux:

uh huh … that pesky Catholic Tradition went and gave us worship on Sunday rather than the Sabbath … and this Immaculate Conception thing … and that compilation of Gospels and letters we call the New Testament.

Why is Church on Sunday and the New Testament Canon an acceptable Catholic Tradition, but not the Immaculate Conception? If you follow some Catholic Traditions, by what basis do you decided which?

michel

Scripture teaches us Sunday worship,

**Act 20:7 And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. **

**1Cr 16:2 Upon the first [day] of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as [God] hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. **

**Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: **

**Rev 1:10
I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, **

An interpretation of that verse
John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

As far as Catholic tradition giving us the books of the Bible I would say I agree in essence with this passage(although I do not accept the monicker Protestant for myself…I am protesting nothing) and I reject denominations as unbiblical as well

"*Many other Christian groups, such as most Baptist and Church of God groups, do not accept the theory that the Christian Bible was not known until various Roman-dominated Councils made their official declarations.

These groups believe that the New Testament supports that Paul (2 Timothy 4:11-13), Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16), and ultimately John (Revelation 22:18-19) finalized the canon of the New Testament. They note that Peter, John, and Paul wrote 21 of the 27 books of the NT (plus, between them, they personally knew all the other NT writers).

They also tend not to accept the Septuagint as the correct Hebrew Bible (nor do many Protestants); they claim that the Masoretic text was known and used by the end of the first Century. They note that early Christians knew the Hebrew Bible since around 170 A.D. Melito of Sardis listed all the books of the Old Testament that those in the Protestant, Baptist, and Church of God faiths now use (except, according the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Book of Esther). Melito’s canon is found in Eusebius EH4.26.13-14 [17]:"*

As far as tradition it is biblical as well:

**2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. **

Christ’s own words were oral tradition until written…and even after they were written some still preferred the oral tradition(I recall reading that I believe)
I do not think Catholicism has a monopoly on tradition and because of that, knowing what traditions to hold to 2,000 years after the fact…is problematic…but obviously a problem I do not feel is solved by Catholicism…in my opinion.
BrianH
good questions

 

[BrianH]

blessedrosary:

My job is not to try to convert your beliefs to mine. I don’t even expect you to see my point of view on this issue based on the Catholic perspective of Sacred Tradition. I, as a Catholic, cannot see one reason why I should find biblical proof of the immaculate conception. If I were to look at the bible as superior to Sacred Tradition, then my faith in the Church would be very poor. I dont expect you to believe this and there is no reason you should if you believe in Sola Scripture. Having said that, if you were in my shoes you would see the immaculate conception as something that makes perfectly logical sense in God’s plan of our salvation.
By the way, what IS the so-called mixed tradition about this. In the Catholic Church, there is no contradictions in Sacred Tradition. Please Explain, Thank you

I do 100% see your point…I have no problem seeing your point of view…a good Catholic SHOULD have that point of view IMO…just attempting to seriously consider tradition from MY POINT OF VIEW. I was not attempting to be flippant about tradition in my first post, I believe it should be looked at but when it comes in so contradictory(and maybe it is not)…it becomes unconvincing for me.

I do not understand the term “sacred tradition” so I cannot answer your last question. From my possibly semantically challenged view…mixed tradition…I mean I see several early Christians…tradition from my viewpoint…who seem to not agree with other tradition.
BrianH
heading to bed but looking forward to any replies

 

[blessedrosary]

BrianH:

I do 100% see your point…I have no problem seeing your point of view…a good Catholic SHOULD have that point of view IMO…just attempting to seriously consider tradition from MY POINT OF VIEW. I was not attempting to be flippant about tradition in my first post, I believe it should be looked at but when it comes in so contradictory(and maybe it is not)…it becomes unconvincing for me.

I do not understand the term “sacred tradition” so I cannot answer your last question. From my possibly semantically challenged view…mixed tradition…I mean I see several early Christians…tradition from my viewpoint…who seem to not agree with other tradition.
BrianH
heading to bed but looking forward to any replies

There is a difference between Sacred Tradition and words that come out of the mouths of religious leaders of the Catholic Church. You must not confuse the two. Of coarse i see why tradition is so confusing to protestants, that being the lack of understanding. Sacred Tradition is either something revealed to the Church (usually the pope) by the Holy Spirit, or a teaching passed on to the Church through oral tradition that is revealed to be truthful by the Holy Spirit.
For a clear example on Sacred Tradition: Say we get a “liberal” pope in the vatican. They might say contraception isn’t sinful or gay marriage etc. However, that may be their lack of faith to the Church and her teachings. You will never see a liberal Pope OFFICIALLY proclaim such teachings that would have to CHANGE other doctrines of faith and morals. Sacred Tradition of the Church is not just every little word that is said by the pope, but rather what we believe the Holy Spirit has used to revealed itself to the Church.
And of coarse, we can doubt that the Sacred Tradition proclaimed by the Pope will always lead us to God, but then again, we have Jesus’ word in Mathew 16:18 to our first pope that we would not be led astray.

 

[littlesheep]

Luke 1:46 And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord,
Luke 1:47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
Luke 1:48 for he *has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on * all generations will call me blessed;

Ok I’ll bite.

Question: Did she know she was born sinless? Or does the words "from now on” not mean anything?

If she was born sinless, why did she need a Savior?

I know timing is everything, for 1200 years the only sinless one was Christ. Then something changed. HUMM wonder what that was? God suddenly reveal that idea? Talking about God revealing something outside scripture is frankly speaking, speaking - well lets say like Jimmy Swarget " God reveled to me just the other day that if you don’t send me your money to build this Tower then I’ll die" “Hay I only got 3 days left” “Hay I only got 2 days left” “Thank the Lord for your generosity I made my goal of some millions of dollars” Ya, I guess we could call that tradition now; an awful lot of preachers are doing the same thing.

Why is it the Sacred Tradition trumps the Word of God? John 1:1-14 pretty much tells you what the Word of God is. Don’t it?

Tying to understand
Just a
littlesheep