Poster "stunned" by Mary's Immaculate Conception

[Mannyfit75]

ECF also held this belief.

I. Mary’s Immaculate Conception

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“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.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

 

[mozart-250]

Roman 5:18 states, " For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. " That one man’s disobedience is Adam’s sin, and that one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. This man who will be made righteous is Jesus.

Many Protestants fail to consider the ancient Jewish context concerning Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Hi:
I had forgotten about the Mary / Ark of the Covenant comparison. I remember of reading it one though.

Of course this comparison is not explicitely spelled out in Scripture, so I would question the wisdom of creating a dogma based on a comparison that may or may not be valid to make.

At first glance, there seems to be ways in which they compare and ways in which they do not.

Both Mary and the Ark of the Covenant housed the presence of God. Of course the Ark of the Covenant was a permanent housing, while Mary was 9 months. And the Ark of the Covenant was a physical structure while Mary was a person.

But if you want to make the comparisons, they would work equally well if you want to make the claim that Mary achieved some type of Wesleyan “entire sanctification” (somebody in this thread mentioned that and it jarred my memory) by the time she reached the age of 13. While I am not sure that I could even make that claim from Scripture, it does not seem to be a terrible stretch either (maybe a little one perhaps). Sort of like how the perpetual virginity thing appears to me as a little stretch.

Now on to the ECF quotes.

 

[VociMike]

Kecharitomene is simply the perfect passive participle of charito. And of course we don’t have the original Greek text, so there is no “original Greek” versus “Erasmus Greek.”

Insofar as there’s an argument here, it would be based on the use of the perfect rather than the aorist tense. The aorist would refer to an act that had taken place once for all in the past, while the perfect is an act that continues (or whose consequences continue) to the present. However, this is a very slim basis to build a theory, much less a dogma on.

But you understand, I expect, that the sinlessness of Mary is not built upon this one passage of scripture, but rather is a part of the deposit of faith which finds support in this one passage of scripture (among others).

 

[mozart-250]

ECF also held this belief.

I. Mary’s Immaculate Conception

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“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.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

Of course you are aware there are quotes by the ECF that are not supportive.

I am very careful to separate apostolic tradition from tradition that may crept in from other sources. Therefore I am most comfortable with the writings from the ECF that were spiritual children and grandchildren of the apostles, that their doctrine is apostolic. When I see something that first receives substantiation 200 years after the fact, I really question whether this is true apostolic tradition.

Anyway…these quotes work equally well under the Wesleyan entire sanctification model as mentioned above. Now you are not going to get some Protestants (the Reformed, Calvinistic type) to buy into Wesleyan theology, but at the mininum this would be much less of a stretch than “conceived without original sin” and “not one sin (even venial) during her entire lifetime”.

 

[mark_a]

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

Their remains.

 

[mark_a]

I guess we are afraid of looking too catholic.

Just like Billy Graham says!!!

Oh well, maybe we will bridge the gap. We will take it on our shoulders to do this!! Ouch my shoulders hurt! LOL

Good, the pope could use a break.

 

[Alexius]

Yet, there is no relic or tomb where Mary died. She spend her last days in Ephesus (present day Turkey). To this day, there is no body of Mary. You can also note that there is no body of Jesus Christ either.

I was in Ephesus and can testify that you will not find any of relics of her.

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…The primary effects of the Fall are sin resulting in death. The Orthodox view tends to only focus on one aspect of the atonement - Christus Victor…
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.
No offense - you guys can teach us a thing or two about the proper focus of Pascha.
That is why they will insist Anslem was influence by Roman penal justice…

1. By Hellenistic Judaism, I was always taught that these were Jews who took up the Greek language AND thought. They obsorbed the Greek culture…
2. I agree that the primary effect of the fall is death, but not sin, because sin is a personal action and cannot be “inherited.” The statement would then read, “The primary effect of sin is death.”
3. I agree that the primary emphasis of Orthodoxy is on Christus Victor, but that does not neglect our sinfulness. As a matter of fact, the priest’s sermon during the Nativity last Sunday, was focused on human sin and Christ’s death for that sin on the cross. As for Anselm and Substitutionary teachings on atonement, these were not taught in the east. Besides, his view dominates in the west, and dates from the 1100’s and Scholastic thought.
4. It is also imperative that we realize what St. Paul believed as a Jewish man. Hence, he would not teach “his own gospel” to his fellow Jews, but rather teach what Christ accomplished for them. To teach his own type of Augustinian original sin to people who were never taught such a thing is proposterous! No, St. Paul held to the Jewish teaching on the Fall.
5. A thing or two about Pascha? Is that all the east has attributed? Really now, I can name many things the western church has done to contribute to the Church. Even more special is that Christ was born in the east!

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.

Instead of addressing the comment to me as a polite question, such as “Why does the…,” you spoke in what I perceived as a criticizing tone. By speaking in this manner, it seemed that you were looking for people to support your statement. What I meant by “impersonal comments” was you not talking to any person in particular (which isn’t always wrong), but rather criticizing my statement almost as if you were making the comment to yourself. I was wrong to jump the gun, though, at the time it seemed justifiable to me, but now that I look back on it, I see that you didn’t mean it in this manner. So, if you’ll forgive me for falsely accusing you, it would bring better peace to me…

BTW, you have pointed out an interesting insight about death. When I speak of death, I speak of a physical death, not spiritual death. I have thought about this question before, but I always forget to find out the difference in terms…

Hi,
I have absolutely no doubts about Mary being able to carry Jesus Christ and still sin. Actually I find it comforting that God would use a sinner to give to us such an awesome Gift–Jesus Christ. It makes me feel more connected to Mary…That gives me assurance about me and my salvation.

Sin affects the whole being, so if Mary were committing sin (past or present) while Christ was in her, he would be affected with sin as well. As God says that He Himself cannot dwell in anything undefiled. So Mary had to be pure .

I believe that the objection I had to it was that her sinlessness was unnecessary because the Holy Spirit protected Christ. Well, this would be plausible if Christ was just divine and not human, but he was human also. This humanity he received from his mother had to be pure, or Christ would not have been able to save sinners as he would be one himself! Remember, Christ’s humanity comes from his mother and as such, his face was that of her’s and her face was that of his:thumbsup: !

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[mark_a]

Of course you are aware there are quotes by the ECF that are not supportive.

No Church Father taught perfectly on every subject. This is where the Church steps in and makes a decision.

I am very careful to separate apostolic tradition from tradition that may crept in from other sources. Therefore I am most comfortable with the writings from the ECF that were spiritual children and grandchildren of the apostles, that their doctrine is apostolic. When I see something that first receives substantiation 200 years after the fact, I really question whether this is true apostolic tradition.

Is there no truth in “other sources”?

Anyway…these quotes work equally well under the Wesleyan entire sanctification model as mentioned above.

But have they worked equally as well for as long?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Kecharitomene is simply the perfect passive participle of charito. And of course we don’t have the original Greek text, so there is no “original Greek” versus “Erasmus Greek.”

Insofar as there’s an argument here, it would be based on the use of the perfect rather than the aorist tense. The aorist would refer to an act that had taken place once for all in the past, while the perfect is an act that continues (or whose consequences continue) to the present. However, this is a very slim basis to build a theory, much less a dogma on.

Edwin

Well I have two different Greek versions.

What is the version that has the longer form of the word whereas the supposedly Erasmus version has the shorter version? KVJ with strong’s numbers show the short version. Is not the KJV based on Erasmus’?

P.S. thanks for the Kecharitomene. I could not find that anywhere.

Maybe should elaborate to Mozart the in-depth meaning of the word.

 

[Alexius]

Of course you are aware there are quotes by the ECF that are not supportive.

I am very careful to separate apostolic tradition from tradition that may crept in from other sources. Therefore I am most comfortable with the writings from the ECF that were spiritual children and grandchildren of the apostles, that their doctrine is apostolic. When I see something that first receives substantiation 200 years after the fact, I really question whether this is true apostolic tradition.

With all do respect, aren’t you even that much more critical with teachings such as those laid out by Wesley? Granted, I don’t question his sincerity to uphold God’s Word, but you do follow traditions laid out by him 1700 years after Christ. Why does he gain more credibility per se…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[JoeyWarren]

Hi:
I had forgotten about the Mary / Ark of the Covenant comparison. I remember of reading it one though.

Of course this comparison is not explicitely spelled out in Scripture, so I would question the wisdom of creating a dogma based on a comparison that may or may not be valid to make.

At first glance, there seems to be ways in which they compare and ways in which they do not.

Both Mary and the Ark of the Covenant housed the presence of God. Of course the Ark of the Covenant was a permanent housing, while Mary was 9 months. And the Ark of the Covenant was a physical structure while Mary was a person.

But if you want to make the comparisons, they would work equally well if you want to make the claim that Mary achieved some type of Wesleyan “entire sanctification” (somebody in this thread mentioned that and it jarred my memory) by the time she reached the age of 13. While I am not sure that I could even make that claim from Scripture, it does not seem to be a terrible stretch either (maybe a little one perhaps). Sort of like how the perpetual virginity thing appears to me as a little stretch.

Now on to the ECF quotes.

There is another comparison that others don’t include but I do. Joseph knew her not parallels the prohibition of touching the Ark.

 

[JoeyWarren]

With all do respect, aren’t you even that much more critical with teachings such as those laid out by Wesley? Granted, I don’t question his sincerity to uphold God’s Word, but you do follow traditions laid out by him 1700 years after Christ. Why does he gain more credibility per se…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

ooooh, great point there.:bowdown2:

 

[mozart-250]

Is there no truth in “other sources”?

The problem is that the only tradition I am told in Scripture to have in high regard for is apostolic tradition. Now I can’t be definitely sure anything not in Scripture is apostolic, but it there is a much higher probability that teachings of prominent church leaders who are spiritual children and grandchildren of the apostles is apostolic than teaching that surfaced 300 years after the fact.

Otherwise I might just end up believing traditions of men

But have they worked equally as well for as long?

The problem here is that I can read these same quotes by the early church fathers and conclude they believed in Wesleyan entire sanctification in regards to Mary. So how do I know which one they believed.

So then I put entire sanctification versus immaculate conception against the Bible and the stretch factor is much less.

So what do I end up with comparing these two possibilities of Mary (a) Wesleyan entire sanctification (b) immaculate conception

• Early Church Fathers: Push
• Bible: Definite edge entire sanctification

So if I had to choose between the two, I would choose a,

Caveat: this does not mean I strongly believe (a) in regards to Mary. Some poster in this thread mentioned (a) in some context and it got my brain cells thinking…

 

[mark_a]

Hi, Sorry did this point How?

If you’ll check post 77 by Della, she does a good job with this. She does a good job with all her posts. She’s one of the big guns here on these forums.

 

[mozart-250]

With all do respect, aren’t you even that much more critical with teachings such as those laid out by Wesley? Granted, I don’t question his sincerity to uphold God’s Word, but you do follow traditions laid out by him 1700 years after Christ. Why does he gain more credibility per se…

Who says I believe Wesley is infallible.

Just that in this case I would not have to stretch Romans 3:23 or Romans 5:18 to create an arbitrary exception for a person who otherwise was capable of sinning.

 

[mercygate]

For us verses like Romans 3:23 are the heart of the gospel.

For Catholics, the Gospels are the heart of the Gospel.

I remember taking Navigators 2:7 10 years back or so…and one of the first verses we had to memorize…on a section on the gospel message was this verse.

It’s not like Romans 3:23 is like some throw away verse in Jeremiah 53 or someplace like that.

For Catholics, there are no throw away verses. Oh. Maybe there are: Jeremiah 53 isn’t in the Catholic Bible.

Yeah, I know aborted foetuses have not sinned, but Mary was not an aborted foetus. It would really make sense to me that if God went through the bother of creating a deliberate exception to these verses that are at the heart of the gospel message, He would spell it out clearly so that a dummy like me could get it.

You’re not a dummy. But you have been brought up in a “school” of Scripture that with almost deliberate truculence has blinded itself to the Catholic understanding of it.

As is, I am stuck with the assertion that God created a deliberate exception to a verse that is the heart of the gospel message, and really no way to confirm its veracity.

Heart of the Gospel? It is not sin but the forgiveness of sin that is at the heart of the Gospel, is it not? Catholics view this verse as they view much teaching: It applies to the ordinary course of things. We would view this the way we would view a report that you went to a big party and came back to say “EVERYBODY was there!” Yes: all have sinned: Except Jesus. Except those, like the mentally retarded or small children, who are incapable of sin. And in Catholic understanding (not through absolute necessity but, like the Incarnation, through the “fittingness” of the disposition of a generous and merciful God), like Our Lady.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Mozart said: Yeah, I know aborted foetuses have not sinned, but Mary was not an aborted foetus. It would really make sense to me that if God went through the bother of creating a deliberate exception to these verses that are at the heart of the gospel message, He would spell it out clearly so that a dummy like me could get it.

I know aborted fetuses have not sinned? Please elaborate.

At what point does the un-abortive fetus goes from a sinless state to a sinful state?

 

[rtconstant]

Both Mary and the Ark of the Covenant housed the presence of God. Of course the Ark of the Covenant was a permanent housing, while Mary was 9 months. And the Ark of the Covenant was a physical structure while Mary was a person.

Just to make a note here. The Ark was not permanant. When God ordered its creation He had very definant plans for how long its term would be.

 

[Jennifer123]

Many Protestants fail to consider the ancient Jewish context concerning Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

IMHO this is one of the reasons why Catholic teachings are hard for Protestants to initially consider. My in-laws (Evangelical Protestant) once told me there really is no reason for interest in the OT. Sure, exceptions are made for the 10 Commandments and the Psalms, or as a tool to introduce youngsters into the Bible due to the biblical heroes, but otherwise they found little use for the OT.
They don’t seem to realize that since the Bible wasn’t yet gathered together the apostles were referring to Jewish teachings and customs, as Jesus said, He didn’t come to abolish but to fulfill. Faithful and observant Jews knew the Torah front and back, they knew the archtypes when they heard them.
A lot of context is missing if you don’t acknowledge the ancient teachings of the OT.
:twocents:

 

[Jaypeeto3]

They don’t seem to realize that since the Bible wasn’t yet gathered together the apostles were referring to Jewish teachings and customs, as Jesus said, He didn’t come to abolish but to fulfill. Faithful and observant Jews knew the Torah front and back, they knew the archtypes when they heard them.
A lot of context is missing if you don’t acknowledge the ancient teachings of the OT.

That is so very true.
Coming from a nonCatholic background, I had for instance,
never even known that the mother of the Davidic King was
the Queen Mother of the Israelite Nation (she was the gebirah). I couldn’t understand where the early Church got the notion that Mary (mother of the davidic King Jesus) was our Queen. Now I know.