Q's on the Immaculate Conception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Veritas41 said:
Mary needed a Savior to be immaculately conceived --she received the grace of salvation, being preserved from sin rather than cleansed from sin as the rest of us are – due to the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. And, of course, it was by God’s grace she remained sinless (and the Eastern Orthodox, while not having the teaching of the Immaculate Conception because of their views of original sin, do believe in Mary’s sinlessness). John the Baptist, who Jesus said was the greatest of the prophets who would announce the Messiah, was sanctified early on in his mother’s womb. It’s not a stretch, then, that the Mother of the Savior might be conceived in grace and therefore be perfectly sanctified in order to fulfill her God-ordained role in salvation. The Immaculate conception is pure predestination.
Click to expand...
It seems like a stretch to me. So far it appears that there is no evidence of this belief for several centuries. I haven’t gotten through all the links that were posted earlier, but so far the third century is the earliest I have found. There may be earlier writings that exhibit a belief that Mary was somehow sinless but I just havne’t found them yet.

The scriptural evidence seem fairly weak as well. I don’t know enough Greek to engage in a debate and would end up just relaying what others have said so I’ll just accpet what the posters have said above at face vavlue about the Greek term in Luke.

The typology has several problems, mainly that there are no rules limiting how one works with types in scripture.

But, in the end, it wasn’t my purpose to debate this issue. I just wanted to see what Catholics had to say about the patristic evidence and what they thought the scriptural evidence was. Now I know.
 
Hi Reformed1, welcome to the forums.

I appreciate your sincerity, candor, and charity. Thank you for entering into the dialog in such a respectful manner.

I think that in a earlier post you mentioned the reformers’ views on the Immaculate Conception. I have seen this quote (among others) kicking around from Martin Luther:
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God”, 1527)
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how much value that has, though, in the present discussion. I think it suffices to show that at one time Luther did hold to the Immaculate Conception. . . . and there are a few other quotes from Luther, I think, that bolster this.

But, Luther may have changed his mind. He may have changed it several times. I don’t know.

In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas at one time did not see how the Immaculate Conception was possible (although he did hold that Mary was sanctified before her birth, and committed no sin in her life.)

I say “at one time” for both Luther and Aquinas. Because I think they both agree now about the veracity of the Immaculate Conception. 👍 The point being, its not if you or I, or Luther, or Aquinas believe(d) it, but rather: is it true? We have it on good authority that it is.

You have seen some of the seeds in scripture (or at least what are identified by us, by the Fathers, by other theologians, by Popes, by saints, etc. as seeds), and you have seen the later theological development, through the Fathers, the Councils, the Popes, the faithful, etc. It is very similar to many of the Christological dogmas in their development.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I hope you find them useful.

God Bless you, and welcome to the forums again!
VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Hi Reformed1, welcome to the forums.

I appreciate your sincerity, candor, and charity. Thank you for entering into the dialog in such a respectful manner.

I think that in a earlier post you mentioned the reformers’ views on the Immaculate Conception. I have seen this quote (among others) kicking around from Martin Luther:

I’m not sure how much value that has, though, in the present discussion. I think it suffices to show that at one time Luther did hold to the Immaculate Conception. . . . and there are a few other quotes from Luther, I think, that bolster this.

But, Luther may have changed his mind. He may have changed it several times. I don’t know.

In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas at one time did not see how the Immaculate Conception was possible (although he did hold that Mary was sanctified before her birth, and committed no sin in her life.)

I say “at one time” for both Luther and Aquinas. Because I think they both agree now about the veracity of the Immaculate Conception. 👍 The point being, its not if you or I, or Luther, or Aquinas believe(d) it, but rather: is it true? We have it on good authority that it is.

You have seen some of the seeds in scripture (or at least what are identified by us, by the Fathers, by other theologians, by Popes, by saints, etc. as seeds), and you have seen the later theological development, through the Fathers, the Councils, the Popes, the faithful, etc. It is very similar to many of the Christological dogmas in their development.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I hope you find them useful.

God Bless you, and welcome to the forums again!
VC
Click to expand...
Thanks for the post. I didn’t think Marty would have accepted such a belief so I will have to do a little research on that.

I think your comment on authority is spot on. I don’t accept your church’s authority and the evidence of the Immaculate Conception minus the authority of an infallible church isn’t convincing to me.

However, I did learn a lot more about what the patristics thought and am still looking into that so all and all, this thread was profitable for me.

By the way, for the most part, eveyone has been very cordial at CAF. One or two posters have been a little on the attack mode but it wasn’t a big deal.
 
Wow… this thread was a joy to read, even though I’m late…
(wish they all could be as honest and civil as this one!)

One late point regarding Gen 3:15, brought up by many others:

I have always found it quite remarkable, that God’s promise of enmity (total oppostion) between the Devil (evil) and the offspring (Jesus Christ) was also promised in the same way between the Devil (evil) and the offspring’s mother. Some non-Catholic Christians often make the assumption that the “woman” might be Eve, but most who think their way through it realize that won’t wash… Eve had cooperated with the Devil.

Any way you cut this verse, I think you have to admit that
the same relationship that exists between Jesus and Evil, also exists between “the woman” and Evil. Catholics have Mary to explain this verse. I’m not sure how others explain it, but I’ll listen…

God Bless Us All!
 
Reformed1 said:
I’ve heard that Calvin and Luther accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity…which makes sense to me as well.
Click to expand...
This in itself is unusual in this day and age.

Mary’s sinfulness is usually accompanied by a plentitude of Jesus’ sibs, which is enough to make anyone sin.
 
mark_a said:
This in itself is unusual in this day and age.

Mary’s sinfulness is usually accompanied by a plentitude of Jesus’ sibs, which is enough to make anyone sin.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you mean by this Mark. What is unusual?
 
mark_a said:
That Mary’s perpetual virginity makes sense to you.
Click to expand...
I was pretty sure that’s what you meant but thought I better ask.

Some people oppose anything that’s Catholic just because it’s Catholic.
 
Your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist believes in the Immmaculate Conception (after a great deal of consideration!), because of the patristic evidence, but most of all, because of the singular language used by Gabriel at the Annunciation…
No one, anywhere else, is ever callled “full of grace” in the same way as Mary.
I think it is important to emphasize that this does NOT mean that Mary did not need a Saviour; it simply means that the graces that one ordinarily receives in baptism, were hers from the moment of her conception.
(But hey, that’s just me…)
 
Reformed1 said:
I was pretty sure that’s what you meant but thought I better ask.

Some people oppose anything that’s Catholic just because it’s Catholic.
Click to expand...
:tiphat: for the mutually respectful way you ran this thread.
 
Reformed1 said:
Greetings,

This is my very first post at Catholic Answers (I’m not Catholic by the way).

My questions have to do with the Immaculate Conception and how this belief come about.

It is my understanding that no one in the early church believed that Mary was sinless, or at least there is no evidence of such a belief. By early church, I am speaking of…say up to the year 400. Is this true? If it isn’t, can you guys post the patristic evidence for this belief.

What is the scriptural evidence for this belief? I can’t think of a single verse that would even imply that Mary was sinless.

Thanks in advance for your answers,

Reformed1
Click to expand...
These may help:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1643780&postcount=14
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1643781&postcount=15
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1643785&postcount=16
 
Hi,
Reformed.
This is just my take as I see it. God pre-ordained Mary to be the mother of God; it just makes sense to me that she would be free of sin, and needed to be in order to bear the child of God. So I ask? would it make sense that he would take away that grace bestowed on her from the beginning of time, I think not, after all honor your father and mother is one of the ten commandments. All things are possible with God.

May the Holy Spirit be with you in your quest for the truth.

ONENOW1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top