Poster "stunned" by Mary's Immaculate Conception

[ALLFORHIM]

Hello again,

I don’t understand the question.

Hi,
Wow talk about grammatical errorI have not eaten breakfast yet I meant I didnt see your last comment about the beliefs about Mary glorified Jesus.

I guess I dont get How.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

We claim to have all the original apostles relics, though.

Hi,
What are the relics? I didnt know there were any. I learn something new every day.

 

[Melchior]

Were not the Jews of Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon Hellenistic? I have read several Jewish Commentaries that explicitly deny Augustine’s teaching of original sin and affirm a position in line with Orthodoxy and the earliest fathers of the Church. There is no “stain” of sin mentioned in these (although I’ll qualify Tertullian’s legal thinking, but then again, he denied the ever-Virginity of the Theotokos !)

By the way, Augustine is far from Hebrew thought and struggles with his early Manichaen thought…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

If you mean the Jews of Israel (sorry - pet peeve “Palestine” was something the Romans imposed in AD 150 to mock the Jews. There was no place called Palestine in Biblical times) - no they were not Hellenistic. And Hellenic Jews simply referred to them being Greek speaking. Syria and Lebanon are not Israel. Though parts of it were - the people of Damascus were not the people of Jerusalem - so the geography does not neccesitate a relation. The Jews of Israel were Hebrew/Aramaic speaking primarily. They were not Hellenic thinkers. And Augustine got St. Paul very well. And Saint Paul was a Hebrew who thought like a Hebrew. St. Paul’s view and of original sin and the Hebrew ideas of covenantal identity and headship had everything to do with Hebrew thought. Mankind would not have inherited corruption either if the Orthodox position were correct. Here is the problem, and Jews would agree. As with the Western Church and many of the fathers. But more importantly the testimony of scripture - The primary effects of the Fall are sin resulting in death. The Hellenistic taint of the east is thinking the primary effects of the Fall is death which leads to sin. Nowhere is scripture is this found to be true. In fact much scripture needs to be ignored or explained away in order to support this position. That is why the Orthodox view tends to only focus on one aspect of the atonement - Christus Victor. While downplaying or completely denying that that it was a sacrifice to the Father. That it was penal. That it was substitutionary. All these are essential. But the Eastern view minimizes the effects of the Fall and therefore cannot understand the full effects of the Cross. That is why all the foreshadowing of animal sacrifice in the Old Testament is so ignored in Orthodoxy. And why the OT plays such a minimal role in Orthodox teaching.

Further first century Hellenism among the Roman world was still a different animal than the Hellenism of the Eastern post-Nicene Fathers. Just compare their writings and thoughts to the Apostles and the anti-Nicene fathers. Worlds apart. And all over the place - often contradictory.

I am sorry but the Jews may not have an identical view of original sin (they are not Christians after all), but the Eastern Churches are much further away from Hebrew thought in regard to sin and atonement, the effects of the fall, the idea of God’s wrath and sin atonement etc. than the wetstern church. They call anything relating God feelings as an anthropomorphism. which is simply a dismissal. Because the Israelites certainly understood the realities of it.

That Augustine struggled with heretical thought is not a problem. He got somethings right and somethings wrong. Most heresies arose in the east and many eastern fathers struggled with some major heresies as well. But the fact remains the prominent Eastern Fathers (The Gregory’s, Basil, John of Damascus) got plenty right, but they got plenty wrong because they could not think in the Hebrew categories of Biblical thought so the de-emphasized the lessons and connection of the OT to the NT and poured and entirely different menaing into it. The effects have lasted to today. I know more Greek Orthodox people who believe Alexander the Great created monotheism than the ancient Hebrews. Why? Because the never hear the Hebrew Scriptures in the Liturgy not were they taught them in Sunday school.

When one studies the OT scriptures it because very clear they relying on Eastern theology alone will never give you the entire picture.

No offense - you guys can teach us a thing or two about the proper focus of Pascha. That is your strength. But your understanding of the Fall is incomplete therefore your understanding on the scope of the atonement is too.

I wish more Catholics understood that the theology is not identical on the Fall and the atonement. Orthodox are right just not complete in there understanding precisely because they do not engage the Hebraic nature of scripture as much as the West has learned to do. That is why they will insist Anslem was influence by Roman penal justice when it is clear simply by reading the scriptures that His ideas came from studying the Hebrew Bible.

 

[SAHM02]

Hi,
What are the relics? I didnt know there were any. I learn something new every day.

newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm

 

[decn2b]

Amen!

I know the whole ark of the covenant.

The leaping of John the baptist in his own mothers womb when Mary approached at the same time. David leaping in the presence of the ark

David from the Old testament In the same hill country as eliezabeth David said " how is it that the ark has come to me

Elizabeth standing on the same ground said "how is it that the mother of the lord has come to me?

Gabriel comes to Mary and says “hail, full of Grace!”

I was always taught that Grace was not availible to people until Jesus’ death on the cross. Wasn’t man cut off from Grace until the opening of the floodgates of Grace at the crucifixion??? if so how could Mary Have been full of grace BEFORE Jesus was even conceived?

Scripture is CHOCK FULL of evidence of the IC and sinlessness.
But the most appealing evidence to me comes from the early church Fathers. Almost every single early church father writes on Mary’s perfection. I mean way way way back to the first few decades even BEFORE some of the GOspels were finished.

The really amazing thing is that this has caused to some scandal. It seems outrageous…yet there is not a sliver of evidence from the early church that anyone was opposed to the notion of her immaculateness. With all of the early writings on this matter of her perfection don’t you think that there would have been at least one or two writings to address the issue from YOUR point of view.?? I challenge you to find one Church Father who writes about being as shocked as you are about the doctrine.

 

[rr1213]

The really amazing thing is that this has caused to some scandal. It seems outrageous…yet there is not a sliver of evidence from the early church that anyone was opposed to the notion of her immaculateness. With all of the early writings on this matter of her perfection don’t you think that there would have been at least one or two writings to address the issue from YOUR point of view.?? I challenge you to find one Church Father who writes about being as shocked as you are about the doctrine.

There has not been unanimous consent on the issue, even from the early days. See below:

"In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.

Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ’s passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary’s soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, “In Luc. hom. xvii”).

In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary’s soul (Epistle 259).

St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also “In Matt.”, hom. 4)."

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

[VociMike]

Yes, Christ died, but not of a natural death, rather he was put to death in an unnatural way. The Holy Virgin died in a natural manner and at an old age. I think it is a relavent question since it comes from my heart and I want to hear the reasoning behind it. To make impersonal comments regarding the nature of this question is rather repulsive . I sincerely need help as this is tied to whether the Immaculate Conception is valid or not.

Wow, I can’t fathom what I said that you find repulsive. I thought that “impersonal comments” were the proper and polite mode of discussion, as opposed to “personal comments”.

Anyway, there is no distinction in scripture between “natural” and “unnatural” death. There is no death, and there is death. God did not say “for the day you eat of [that tree] you shall die a natural death”. Paul did not say “sin came into the world through one man and natural death through sin”.

 

[Melchior]

I must apologize for the hideous amount of typos in my last post. Never post pre-coffee.

Mel

 

[Orionthehunter]

Sorry, I did not mean my response to your post to come across like that.

I think that the doctrines are difficult to understand, at least to those of us who were not raised Catholic, because they are contary to what we see everyday in life. We live in a fallen world where even the greatest of the great saints among us still sin to some degree. So, even though we know that we are talking about a miraculous exception (Mary without original sin and/or remaining sinless), it is hard for us to get our feeble minds around the concept. At least it is for me.

RR, there is much about the infinite nature of God that our feeble minds can’t understand. These are mysteries which will be illuminated when we see the face of God.

Not that anyone asked me , but I wish the Church had kept the same silence as to the immaculate conception instead of dogmatically defining the teaching. That removes any ability for a Catholic or potential Catholic to keep his own counsel on the subject.

RR, you will find that the longer you hang out with us that the Church takes quite seriously its commission by Christ as Shepherd and to safeguard the Deposit of Faith and Truth. The more errors that people adapt in their “own counsel” the more errors there are about God. In our calling to love and serve God, it is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of God in all His Revelation. Otherwise, we will be loving and serving a rendition of God that is inaccurate, a creation of our “own counsel” and thus blasphemous.

Hi,

I personally believe God buried her body so no one would know and could not find it. He did the same with Moses. There is a Scripture reference for it I think in Exodus. I think God did this because otherwise people would absolutely worship those sights. Moses was a GREAT MAN and Im sure his followers would worship at his grave. I dare to say people might even do it today. IMHO I think the same would absolutely happen if we knew where Mary was buried. How many catholics here would go to her grave? I bet you every single one and many other religions as well. I might even. God doesnt want us to take our focus off of Christ. By thinking about Moses or Mary other then they were followers of God/Christ and did HIS WILL to me is wrong.

AllforHim, if God had to personally go to the trouble to bury Mary Himself, why wouldn’t He just take her up to Heaven directly?

 

[Contarini]

Scripture is CHOCK FULL of evidence of the IC and sinlessness.

I fail to see how anything you’ve referred to is evidence for the IC.

But the most appealing evidence to me comes from the early church Fathers. Almost every single early church father writes on Mary’s perfection.

Defined how?

I mean way way way back to the first few decades even BEFORE some of the GOspels were finished.

Specifics?

The really amazing thing is that this has caused to some scandal. It seems outrageous…yet there is not a sliver of evidence from the early church that anyone was opposed to the notion of her immaculateness.

You can’t slide from the general proposition “Mary is spotless” (which could mean all sorts of things, such as her virginity or simply what Wesleyans would call “entire sanctification”) to the specific doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

With all of the early writings on this matter of her perfection don’t you think that there would have been at least one or two writings to address the issue from YOUR point of view.?? I challenge you to find one Church Father who writes about being as shocked as you are about the doctrine.

Because the doctrine hadn’t been developed yet. It wasn’t even conceivable before Augustine, because it only becomes an issue once you have a fully developed doctrine of original sin. Right through the Middle Ages the entire Dominican Order opposed the doctrine. Your argument is woefully ill-informed.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If the IC is true, then Mary also had the capacity but chose not to sin. I find that implausible considering that our only example of a sinless human being is Christ himself.

I’m not sure I follow your argument here, and you haven’t engaged my point about the “second Fall.” A naturally sinless being (which is what being without original sin would mean) choosing to sin would be an incredibly catastrophic event. Your argument works against the IC, and that’s fine–I’m not here to argue for the IC. All I’m trying to show is that the proposition “Mary was conceived without original sin” is far more radical than the proposition “Mary had original sin but never freely chose to sin,” and the proposition “Mary was conceived without original sin but repeated the sin of her first ancestors even though she had no predisposition to do so” is if possible the most radical of all.

Implicit in your argument seems to be the assumption that human beings are predisposed to sin apart from original sin itself. That is to say, you seem to find the idea of a person without original sin *not *choosing to sin surprising. Why? Original sin is what disposes us to commit actual sins. The great puzzle is not why a person without original sin would choose *not *to sin, but rather why they would choose *to *sin. (Though admittedly this would make more sense in Mary’s case than in that of Adam and Eve, since she was surrounded by sinners.)

Why do you doubt the immaculate conception but tend to believe that Mary was without sin?

Because Mary’s sinlessness and great holiness is an ancient tradition of the Church, and because I believe in the possibility of Christian perfection.

If she was subject to original sin, then her human nature would be corrupted and it would be inconceivable (pun intended) that she would not sin. (I suppose that it would make sense to the Orthodox who have a different concept of original sin than us in the West, but…)

Well, I think in some respects the doctrine of original sin I grew up with is different from the Augustinian one, and that may play a role. You have been around Methodists, so I guess I assumed you were more familiar with the Wesleyan perspective than is the case.

I do not believe that original sin precludes Christian perfection, and I do not believe that original sin is sin in the strict sense, which Wesley defined as “a willful transgression of a known law of God.” Original sin is an infection of the will that predisposes us to actual sin, and it is irresistible *except for grace. *Your entire discussion of this issue ignores the grace of God–which seems like a pretty big omission to me.

The point of grace is to free us from sin, not simply to forgive our sins. St. Paul says that where sin abounded grace *much more *abounds. That is not the impression you get from much of the Western Augustinian tradition, particularly its Protestant versions (Lutheranism, Calvinism, and the latter’s Baptist offshoots). To say that we sin inevitably (when sin is defined as I defined it above–obviously we will inevitably fall short in some respects) is to say that grace is powerless.

Also, from a practical standpoint, have you ever known a person to be sinless?

I am in no position to judge. But I can think of at least one person (my childhood piano teacher, who is a close friend of the family and whom I’ve known over a period of more than 20 years) whom I have never seen act out of selfishness or pride or anything other than love of God and neighbor. That is my definition of sinlessness–a person whom grace has so transformed that all their actions are supremely motivated by love (in Wesley’s terms this actually goes beyond freedom from sin in the strict sense, because it involves a person’s habitual “tempers” as well as their voluntary actions). She is not perfect–she has made plenty of mistakes (and she drives like a maniac, which some might consider a sin). But as far as I can discern, she has never chosen to disobey God or to act in a manner incompatible with love.

There are some other people I’ve known who might fit the bill, but this is the most obvious example.

Of course not, we live in a fallen world. If a sinless woman such as Mary was living in your neighborhood, you would have heard more about it and this miracle would be reflected directly and explicitly in the New Testament (more than just Gabriel’s ambiguous pronouncement).

I think that arguments along the lines of “if X were happening the NT would tell us about it” are weak when they involve details–and this is a detail. The NT does tell us that creation is being renewed in the Incarnation. The holiness of Mary is simply one of the incidental circumstances to this. If a “second fall” had taken place, then you’d think the NT would tell us about it.

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

Well, I think in some respects the doctrine of original sin I grew up with is different from the Augustinian one, and that may play a role. You have been around Methodists, so I guess I assumed you were more familiar with the Wesleyan perspective than is the case.

I grew up in the Methodist Church and worshipped there faithfully for 25 years prior to converting to the Episcopal Church upon marrying an Episcopalian. Unfortunately, none of the UM Churches I attended were very good at teaching Wesleyan concepts, at least apart from free will and a social conscience (and, maybe, small groups). This will sound sad, but I do not remember even hearing of prevenient grace, justifying grace or sanctifying grace until attending an Emmaus weekend (an ecumenical version of Cursillo) ten years after leaving the Methodist Church.

 

[rr1213]

I’m not sure I follow your argument here, and you haven’t engaged my point about the “second Fall.” A naturally sinless being (which is what being without original sin would mean) choosing to sin would be an incredibly catastrophic event…

I’ll agree with that. Which means one of two things: (1) Mary was naturally sinless and did not choose to sin or (2) Mary did sin in some small way. I believe that the latter is the more likely explanation.

Implicit in your argument seems to be the assumption that human beings are predisposed to sin apart from original sin itself. That is to say, you seem to find the idea of a person without original sin *not *choosing to sin surprising. Why?..

***Because we have the example of only three persons in that situation and two of these, Adam and Eve, sinned and the other is divine. ***

Original sin is an infection of the will that predisposes us to actual sin, and it is irresistible *except for grace. *Your entire discussion of this issue ignores the grace of God–which seems like a pretty big omission to me. The point of grace is to free us from sin, not simply to forgive our sins. St. Paul says that where sin abounded grace *much more *abounds. That is not the impression you get from much of the Western Augustinian tradition, particularly its Protestant versions (Lutheranism, Calvinism, and the latter’s Baptist offshoots). To say that we sin inevitably (when sin is defined as I defined it above–obviously we will inevitably fall short in some respects) is to say that grace is powerless.

***I don’t think that grace is powerless. It is only be grace that we are saved and sanctified. Unlike Wesley, I don’t believe that we can achieve total sanctification this side of heaven. Everyone sins to some degree, although some of us are bigger sinners than others. Remember that we can sin in our hearts without displaying that sin to anyone other than ourselves and God. ***

I think that arguments along the lines of “if X were happening the NT would tell us about it” are weak when they involve details–and this is a detail. The NT does tell us that creation is being renewed in the Incarnation. The holiness of Mary is simply one of the incidental circumstances to this. If a “second fall” had taken place, then you’d think the NT would tell us about it.

I think that if the “second fall” took place it would be referred to in Scripture. I think the same of a woman living a totally sinless life.

 

[VociMike]

If the IC is true, then Mary also had the capacity but chose not to sin. I find that implausible considering that our only example of a sinless human being is Christ himself.

What you are actually saying here is that God created a fatally flawed creature when He created man. Even without the corruption of a fallen nature, you are saying that man could not ever avoid sin. Even in the most perfect, uncorrupt form, man was fatally flawed. That doesn’t say much about God’s abilities.

Gee, God didn’t make such a mistake when He made the angels. Some of them sinned, but most of them did not. By your logic, every single angel should be a sinner. But we know this is not the case. The example of the angels argues against your “intuition” and for Mary’s sinlessness.

 

[christianley]

So that I wouldn’t take the thread in which this statement was written off-topic, I decided to start a new thread:

In all sincerity, why were you stunned? What do you think it says about Mary that all Christians can’t embrace and/or about the Catholic Church?

It is interesting to me that the Eastern Orthodox proclaim that Mary was preserved from falling into sin even though they don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception says that Mary was preserved from the stain of guilt from original sin, but the Eastern Orthodox say we don’t have any stain of guilt (just the stain of death) from original sin. Because Eastern Orthodox believe that nobody inherits a stain of guilt from Adam’s original sin, there was no need for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Eastern Orthodox believe humans receive an overwhelming propensity to sin, but that Mary was preserved from such sin by God’s grace. So the overwhelming tradition of both East and West claim that Mary was preserved from sin.

I am a recent convert to the Catholic Church. Would someone please explain to me why we even need to be concerned about whether Mary was sinless or not? I don’t see any of that having any bearing on Christ at all. I guess it is nice to believe that Mary was sinless (and I do), but why would it make a difference if she wasn’t? And why does it make a difference to a Protestant if she is sinless? How does that change your need for salvation? Even Mary needed to be saved from death.

 

[kage_ar]

Also, from a practical standpoint, have you ever known a person to be sinless? Of course not, we live in a fallen world. If a sinless woman such as Mary was living in your neighborhood, you would have heard more about it and this miracle would be reflected directly and explicitly in the New Testament (more than just Gabriel’s ambiguous pronouncement).

Interesting point, because I’ve thought about this in the opposite way. I live in a place where people still talk to neighbors and sit around on porches to visit in the summer - we know our neighbors. Of the neighbors that I know, I have only witnessed two or three of them do something that appeared to be an obvious “sin”, and have had a couple more confide in me about things they have done that were sinful. Other than that, if everything were based on what I see or hear about my neighbors, they’d appear sinless.

Going to my dear Christian mother, I have never once seen or heard anything sinful in her life. My mother does not even say “darn”, she is faithful to the teachings of Christ, she shows amazing love for all those around her, she works hard and suffers long, I have never known her to lie, to steal… to my eyes, my mother appears sinless.

(Of course, I know this cannot be the case, but, do you see my POV)?

Perhaps you experience is with more “colorful” people than mine, but, to me it seems a virtous woman could live up the road, and never commit a sin, and her neighbors would only speak of how kind and loving she was - it would not strike them “oh my gosh, she never sins!”

 

[Della]

Even though I started this thread, I haven’t been able to read all the posts, so if what I’m saying here has been said, I apologize for being repetitive.

The thing that is important about Mary’s sinlessness throughout her life is what it tells us about her Son, as in the case of all Marian teachings. It is too easy to get all caught up in arguments about scriptural proofs and other points, and so miss the real significance of such teachings.

In the case of the sinlessness of Mary, what the Church is teaching us about Christ is that his redemption is sure and his promises are true.

What is it that we are all hoping for in Christ? To be perfected in love and holiness. Yes? Well, we find that in Mary, the first to be redeemed and sanctified in Christ. We see in her what Christ has in store for all who are in him.

In her assumption we see the promise of our resurrection, for we will be assumed into heaven one day as complete people, too. Our souls and our bodies made perfect and immortal.

It is a beautiful thing that God gave us not only Jesus as our example (being both God and man what else could he be but perfect). But also, Mary to show us that what we are looking forward to being has been done for her, so that we can be assured we will attain to perfection, too.

I won’t go into all the debates down through the centuries because they really don’t matter, in the end. What matters is that Christ’s Church has recognized Mary’s place in salvation history and pronounced on it. The Body of Christ has spoken for our edification and joy.

 

[Syele]

Maybe I’m in a minority and this teaching of the Catholic Church is widely known among other Protestants, but it certainly was not known to me.

I don’t believe you are in a minority on this. I didn’t know it until I came to this forum and I even used to attend Mass regularly!

It’s totally normal for any protestant to have significant trouble with this. I certianly do.

 

[christianley]

I don’t believe you are in a minority on this. I didn’t know it until I came to this forum and I even used to attend Mass regularly!

It’s totally normal for any protestant to have significant trouble with this. I certianly do.

Why does it bother you that Jesus might have kept Mary from falling into sin? Don’t you hope Jesus keeps you from falling into sin? Don’t we pray for God to keep us from falling into sin? Why do we pray this if we think God can’t do it for us? And if God can do it for us, why couldn’t God have done it for the Virgin Mary?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Interesting point, because I’ve thought about this in the opposite way. I live in a place where people still talk to neighbors and sit around on porches to visit in the summer - we know our neighbors. Of the neighbors that I know, I have only witnessed two or three of them do something that appeared to be an obvious “sin”, and have had a couple more confide in me about things they have done that were sinful. Other than that, if everything were based on what I see or hear about my neighbors, they’d appear sinless.

Going to my dear Christian mother, I have never once seen or heard anything sinful in her life. My mother does not even say “darn”, she is faithful to the teachings of Christ, she shows amazing love for all those around her, she works hard and suffers long, I have never known her to lie, to steal… to my eyes, my mother appears sinless.

(Of course, I know this cannot be the case, but, do you see my POV)?

Perhaps you experience is with more “colorful” people than mine, but, to me it seems a virtous woman could live up the road, and never commit a sin, and her neighbors would only speak of how kind and loving she was - it would not strike them “oh my gosh, she never sins!”

Hi,
I wish I lived where you do. I live in the Northeast and you can imagine the sin I see and hear about every day of my life. I agree a person can certainly demonstrate being Christ-like. Im sure it is easier depending on where you live. I think if you live away from a major metropolis you have a much better chance. But, the sad fact is that even our thoughts are considered sinful. That is why we are taught in the bible to take captive our thoughts because if we stop that sinful thought it will not get out and potentially hurt anyone else.

Peace