Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

[NonCatholic]

In his Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius lX states that Mary was granted this “singular privilege and grace by God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race.” The merits of Christ’s sacrifice were applied to Mary in advance, as they were applied to the Old Testament saints before Jesus died on the cross. Mary was in need of a saviour because she was implicated in the universal sin of Adam and Eve. But she was not redeemed by having been forgiven through the repentance of personal sins she herself may have committed. Her redemption assuredly took place at the first instant she was conceived in her mother’s womb, not at the precise moment of her death.

Thus in the Magnificat Mary humbly acknowledges her need for a saviour, but in the same breath she confidently asserts that she has been saved. God redeemed Mary by preserving her free from the stain of original sin. Like us she needed a saviour, but her redemption was realized in a unique manner unlike ours. Original sin is marked by the absence of sanctifying grace in the human soul upon its creation and union with the body. In the Annunciation the angel Gabriel hailed and addressed Mary in allusion to her spiritual state and privileged position with God: Mary was endowed with a perfect and lasting grace when God favourably fashioned her soul upon her conception by virtue of her Divine Maternity.

And Mary said,
“My soul proclaims the glory of the Lord,
my spirit rejoices in God my savior
for he has looked with favour on his lowly servant.
From this day all generations will call me blessed;
the Almighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.”
Luke 1, 46-49

The same evangelist who penned the angel’s strange greeting and Mary’s declaration of joy and praise clearly typifies Mary as a type of ark of the Covenant (cf. Lk 1:39, 2 Sam 6:2; 1:41, 6:16; 1:43, 6:9; 1:43, 6:11). For the Jews the ark of the Old Covenant was the most sacred article of religious worship, God himself being the highest object. It held the Ten Commandments, Aaron’s rod, and the manna from heaven. And the ark was fashioned with the purest gold. Luke reveals Mary’s soul and thereby body was fashioned pure and spotless by the grace of God, for she was highly favoured to conceive and bear the Word made flesh.

The evangelist is acknowledging a traditional belief and practice of Marian devotion that had existed in the infant church in Palestine. The Jewish Christians venerated Mary as they had once venerated the ark of the Old Covenant while still belonging to the Judaic faith (cf. 1 Chron 15-16). They spontaneously perceived Mary as the pure and undefiled ark of the New Covenant. Writing his gospel about seven to twelve years after Mary’s death and Assumption (cf. Rev 11,19; 12:1), Luke confirms the Marian devotion of his time when he describes Mary’s conception of Jesus in the words of the angel Gabriel.

“The holy spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”
Luke 1, 35

The word “overshadow”, which the angel Gabriel used, is the same word (‘episkiasei’) used to describe God’s glory cloud “overshadowing” the ark of the Old Covenant (cf. Ex 24: 15-16; 40: 34-38; 1 Kg 8: 10-11; Job 14:4; 2 Mac 2: 4-8). Like the ark of the Old Covenant, Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was overshadowed by God’s glory cloud (‘shekinah’) and became the “Holy of Holies”, having been originally fashioned pure and undefiled according to God’s specifications, so the faithful in Luke’s time believed in their devotion to Mary (cf. Lk 1:1-4).

Joseph was a devout Jew as well as “a just and honest man”, so I’m sure he had no intentions of having conjugal relations with Mary after having agreed to a celibate marriage (rare but not unheard of among the Jews), according to oral tradition (cf. Lk 1:34). Still as a devout Jew he must have perceived or known that his marriage was no ordinary marriage in light of the Incarnation. The Messiah was expected to be of paternal lineage. The truth is Joseph honoured Mary’s vow of chastity to God. When Luke wrote “I do not know a man”, he was not using the present tense verb arbitrarily as we would do with no definite knowledge of the future outcome. He wrote his gospel after the life of Mary signifying her permanent state of virginity, not an instant of time, in complete acknowledgement of a traditional awareness of the church in Palestine.

If Joseph had broken God’s commandment to procreate, then so did Paul who remained celibate. The apostle must have approved of Mary’s choice to remain a virgin and chaste in view of her divine vocation, for he teaches us that marriage can foster worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s close relationship with God (cf. 1 Cor 7:28). Indeed, Paul says, “So that he that marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage (procreation) will do better” ( 1 Cor 7:38). Paul is clearly telling us that the greater good lies in abstinence for the sake of the kingdom. He does wish that everyone was celibate like him ( 1 Cor 7:7).

PAX :harp:

Interesting at best new theology at worst…I guess you really believe it because you put a lot of time and effort; which is worthy of applause…in my opinion. It is a tough sell in light of what Scripture teaches so clearly. I really do appreciate the response and the effort…thank you!

 

[ckempston]

** The key to understanding Mary is this:
We do not start with Mary. We start with Christ, the Son of the Living God! The less we think of Him, the less we think of Her; the more we think of him, the more we think of Her; the more we adore His Divinity, the more we venerate Her Motherhood; the less we adore His Divinity, the less reason we have of respecting Her…
Noone…who thinks logically about Christ can understand such a question as: “Why do you speak so often of His Mother?”…
You may say “Our Lord is enough for me. I have no need of her”. BUT HE NEEDED HER, whether we do or not. And what is more important, Christ gave us His Mother as our Mother…

Another way to look at this is in the comparison of King David’s words upon seeing the recently regained ark (2 Sam 6:9) and Elizabeth’s exclamation upon seeing Mary (Luke 1:43). Also, the people of Jerusalem shouted with joy on the same ocasion 2 Sam 6:15), while Elizabeth also reacted with a “loud cry” to Mary (Luke 1:42), saying “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!”
Furthermore, as David leapt for joy when the ark was brought to Jerusalem (2 SAm 6:14-16, 1 Chron 15:29), so did John the Baptist in Elizabeth’s womb when the ark of the New Covenant was near (Luke 1:44). It was what each ark contained (The written and incarnated Word of God) that caused the joy in each case, and that is the whole point of the Catholic verson of Mary.**

The same could be said of anybody in Christ’s lineage. Mary is no more necessary than Abraham was. She’s blessed that God chose her, but that is it. Your reasoning works for anybody in the Old Testament. Without a large number of them, we wouldn’t have Christ.

 

[NDfan]

yes Jesus was killed, don’t disagree with you there. But he still died and did not have sin. Now think our point was the Blessed mother right. If she had no sin you said why did she die. I said Jesus had no sin and he died. The point was still death. Now if being sinless meant you would not die, you are correct Jesus and the Blessed Mother would never have died. But scripture said we all die because we have sins. But it never said that if you are sinless you will not die. See what i mean. Now if you are asking did Mary have sin, I said that at her conception okay maybe for a second I guess but she was saved from sin at conception. What i am saying is she was saved from sin. So she was never brought into this world with sin like us. She was saved from sin before she ever entered this world. So from the moment of her conception she was saved. See what I mean. Her mother and father did have original sin, but it was her parents original sin that God saved her from right at conception. Make better sense now.

that is how I can say Mary lived her life without any stain of sin. God took care if that right off the bat. sorry Im not a good teacher. Hope you understand better.

Rinnie I understand your point but again Jesus died not because of HIS sin. So to continue to say HE still died does not support the argument that Mary was sinless even though she died. How did Mary die. Legend has it she died at her house among some of the Apostles. If she died of natural causes then sin was in the equation. Christ on the other hand died because of the sin of another. Scripture doesn’t say if you don’t sin you don’t die. But it does say the sting of sin is death. Death is not attributed to anything else but man’s fall. This is consistent with what GOD states in Genesis.

 

[NDfan]

And again we end up back at the beginning:shrug: Just what did it mean that Mary was “favored” by God always…and we know by His own words that she wasn’t favored by being His mother.Mary by being imaculate meant she is clean,now being clean she did not have the taint of orginal sin in her so,as mentioned,(sorry not in the mood to dig up the post an give credit where it is due ) she would not have the desire to sin.that’s the word she lacked concupiscene
Now as to Mary’s death we really have no definate knowledge of that…But this is known,there are claiments of her remains.

Well if favored means sinless than again the same favor is applied to all Christians according to Paul in Ephesians. We are made favorable (charitoo) to GOD in Christ.

To take it a step further and stay with your logic. Was Mary ever tempted to sin. We know Christ was and chose not to sin. If you say Mary could not commit sin because she lacked the propensity to sin then she did not have free will. GOD tells us in Genesis that when we have knowledge of good and evil we die because we will ultimately choose evil. Having a savior does not stop us from sinning. It justifies us before GOD. So if Mary was already justified before GOD then so be it. But that doesn’t translate into a sinless nature. Mary most assuredly had knowledge of sin.

 

[NDfan]

“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.”
Job 14, 4

We were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Ephesians 2, 3

Human nature is wounded by a sinful inclination. We are sinful by nature once we are conceived in the womb. Jesus (the Son of Man) was conceived and born sinless because his mother was preserved free from the stain of original sin. If our Lord’s mother had been unclean, then Jesus would have been unclean in his humanity. Jesus is as fully human as he is divine. He subjected himself entirely to our fallen human condition - save sinfulness.

Good Fella by this logic Mary was also conceived in a sinful womb making her sinful. For Mary to be sinless by this logic then her mother would have needed to be sinless. And so on and so on. We know that’s not true so then saying Mary was preserved to preserve Christ means GOD could have preserved Christ. Why the need to preserve Mary?

 

[NDfan]

The deepest and most sublime revelations from Scriptures are found in what is not explicit. The Jews call it ‘in the silence of’

So it is with the Emaculate Conception.

How could Jesus teach 'Only a good tree can produce good fruit" if the womb that bore Him produced the seed of sin? Especially knowing that the testimony that prepared His people to receive His presence first refered to Him as ‘seed’. What seed does not become a reproduction of it’s kind? No, the elegently consistent, comprehensive, ageless language of the bible is violated when one insists that Mary sinned.

God works within the order He established, and within that order a good seed can’t originate from evil. In the order God established a seed becomes a reproduction of it’s kind. The purpose of a seed in the order established by God is to become a reproduction of it’s kind.

Correct this is why Jesus was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. Sin is transmitted through the seed of man. Mary could still have sinned but not passed a sinful nature to Mary. It’s impossible to pass a sinful nature onto GOD incarnate.

 

[NDfan]

I don’t understand the relevance of this.

You made the point that GOD was creating an abode for HIMSELF therefore requiring it to be clean. I had no problem with this line of thinking. The point I made was that Mary did not represent the permanent abode for GOD in this life. Why would Mary need to be clean once Christ was born. Mary is no longer the abode.

Where does Scripture say that? I recall Scripture saying that he who knew no sin became sin for us, but this is in reference to the Sacrifice, not his birth.

I was referring to Peter’s letter. I had added that Christ was born into sin meaning a sinful world but committed no sin. That’s it. I clarified that for someone else.

As I explained earlier to brother Mickey, Mary’s Immaculateness was necessary for the sake of Christ not because Christ needed it to be holy, but BECAUSE Christ was/is holy. It was the dignity that was required of the All-Holy God. The dogma of the IC makes this explicit - “in consideration of the merits of Christ Jesus our Savior…” The dogma of the IC explicitly affirms NOT that it is necessary to preserve the holy divinity of Christ, but BECAUSE OF that very holy divinity.

For the sake of Christ? That makes no sense. She was immaculate because Christ was in her is what I think you mean to say.

As above, I don’t see the relevance of this argument.

Explained above

It was her PRIMARY purpose, as already explained to brother Mickey.

Primary and only are 2 different things.

God never left Mary.

So Christ abided in Mary after HE was born? Christ abides in us all. But that does not make us sinless.

That Mary died is a theologoumenon in the Latin Catholic Church. That she died is a sure doctrine in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches.

I never stated Mary did not die. It doesn’t appear you are reading my posts thoroughly. I stated that if the wages of sin are death then why did Mary die.

Mary died because that is the nature of the natural, unglorified human body. What you don’t understand is that the dogma of Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s spiritual conception, not her physical conception. I suggest you read up on the matter in the NewAdvent site. This current argument you give is a straw man. The dogma of the IC in no way proposes that Mary did NOT die.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t need to read up on anything as I am well versed on Catholic doctrine. The bottom line is the IC claims that at the very moment of conception Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin. She lacked the propensity to commit sin and lived a sinless life. I never stated the IC includes Mary not dying. I posed the question that if the wages of sin are death and Mary never sinned, then her physical body should not have been impacted by the sting of sin. Which by the way is death.

Don’t play the spiritual/physical game in your argument.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie I understand your point but again Jesus died not because of HIS sin. So to continue to say HE still died does not support the argument that Mary was sinless even though she died. How did Mary die. Legend has it she died at her house among some of the Apostles. If she died of natural causes then sin was in the equation. Christ on the other hand died because of the sin of another. Scripture doesn’t say if you don’t sin you don’t die. But it does say the sting of sin is death. Death is not attributed to anything else but man’s fall. This is consistent with what GOD states in Genesis.

I agree with you totally. But what the other person said is that if Mary was sinless she would never had died. See what I am saying. My proof was then if what they were saying were true then how could Jesus have died. He said Jesus did not die he was murdered. But my point was he still died WITHOUT SIN. See what I mean? Point is you can be sinless and still die. Thats what I was trying to prove.

 

[NDfan]

Maybe Mary was still alive when scripure was written

Mary did not outlive John. The church does not hold that position.

Is John going to write about Mary’s assumption yet not make explicit the Trinity or the Canon of the Bible etc?

Trinity is a word we use. Scripture does not use it. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison.

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

2 John 1:12 Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you and speak face to face, that your joy may be full.

The things Christ did in this life. Not sure where you are going with 2 John.

 

[Peter_J]

If Mary was taken to Heaven alive as a non-sinner then why doesn’t scripture record it? Certainly John who cared for Mary would know this and would have written about such a significant event. Yet we see nothing from him or any other writers who lived during and after that time in that area.

Blessings to you too

Hi again,

I meant to respond to this earlier today, but I guess I forgot it.

I don’t think I can answer with complete certainty, but my explanation would be that the Assumption is not mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures because the early Church didn’t want to make it a mandatory belief. (Not because “it didn’t happen” or “they weren’t aware of it”, etc.)

 

[rinnie]

Okay heres a good one. Explain this one. The angel comes to mary right. Okay now the angels says Hail favored one The Lord is with you. You get it, the lord iS with you. Not the Lord will come upon you. not the lord is comming it said the Lord IS with you. With means was already there, LONG before she ever conceived Jesus. The angel never said the Lord will be with you. He already was. Is with You. Now tell me if the Church is wrong, then when did God come. Long before the Angel thats for sure.

So that there just confirms the teaching of the CHurch. That Mary was sinless long before she was to conceive Jesus.

Again she was HIGHLY FAVORED and the LORD IS WITH YOU. If that don’t show you without sin. Nothing will ever convince you.

 

[Benadam]

Hi again,

I meant to respond to this earlier today, but I guess I forgot it.

I don’t think I can answer with complete certainty, but my explanation would be that the Assumption is not mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures because the early Church didn’t want to make it a mandatory belief. (Not because “it didn’t happen” or “they weren’t aware of it”, etc.)

Another reason would be
that the Church isn’t in the habit of defining doctrin unless for one reason or another it becomes necessary. The false view of a Church as an overbearing control freak is built on the projections of her accusers denied control issues. I personally believe that it isn’t mentioned because it wasn’t a problem.

 

[NonCatholic]

Okay heres a good one. Explain this one. The angel comes to mary right. Okay now the angels says Hail favored one The Lord is with you. You get it, the lord iS with you. Not the Lord will come upon you. not the lord is comming it said the Lord IS with you. With means was already there, LONG before she ever conceived Jesus. The angel never said the Lord will be with you. He already was. Is with You. Now tell me if the Church is wrong, then when did God come. Long before the Angel thats for sure.

So that there just confirms the teaching of the Church. That Mary was sinless long before she was to conceive Jesus.

Again she was HIGHLY FAVORED and the LORD IS WITH YOU. If that don’t show you without sin. Nothing will ever convince you.

Luke 1:30
The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
(Found “grace with God”… Not “full of grace”), the Latin Vulgate was the only Bible to change this verse.

Here is an example where “full of grace” is used correctly.

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

What the angel said was that Mary was going to receive God’s grace which He would freely give her. She was highly graced. **She was to be receiving the grace that God alone could give. ** This grace would come because he said, “The Lord’s with you…the Lord’s with you.” Now that’s similar to what was said to Gideon, “The Lord is with you, O valiant warrior.” The Lord is with you, Mary, you’re going to receive grace, divine grace.

It had to be that way. It had to be grace. Why? Because Mary was unworthy. The Lord is simply going to give you grace. And people who receive grace can be classified under one term, they’re all sinners. If they weren’t sinners they wouldn’t need grace.

Some manuscripts add, and the New King James has it, “Blessed are you among women.” The older manuscripts omit that. Whether it’s in or out, it’s true, she was blessed. She wasn’t the blesser.

Change the Scripture to “full of grace” and it changes everything that Scripture teaches on this. **The Lord is with everyone who is a believer and righteous in His sight as Mary was.
**
Matthew 28:20
teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, **I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
**

 

[fbl9]

Well if favored means sinless than again the same favor is applied to all Christians according to Paul in Ephesians. We are made favorable (charitoo) to GOD in Christ.

To take it a step further and stay with your logic. Was Mary ever tempted to sin. We know Christ was and chose not to sin. If you say Mary could not commit sin because she lacked the propensity to sin then she did not have free will. GOD tells us in Genesis that when we have knowledge of good and evil we die because we will ultimately choose evil. Having a savior does not stop us from sinning. It justifies us before GOD. So if Mary was already justified before GOD then so be it. But that doesn’t translate into a sinless nature. Mary most assuredly had knowledge of sin.

Eve lacked the prpensity to sin,yet she did.But by your logic here Eve did not have free will either.
In Mary’s case we have an angel of God pronouncing God’s favor of her.
Where in scripture do we find that Mary had knowledge of sin?
so you can not be assured of your assumption.

 

[NonCatholic]

Another reason would be
that the Church isn’t in the habit of defining doctrin unless for one reason or another it becomes necessary. The false view of a Church as an overbearing control freak is built on the projections of her accusers denied control issues. I personally believe that it isn’t mentioned because it wasn’t a problem.

The RCC defines doctrine for Catholics…I’m probably mistaken, but isn’t that part of Dogma?

 

[Benadam]

Luke 1:46-47

46 And Mary said:

 

[rinnie]

Luke 1:30
The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
(Found “grace with God”… Not “full of grace”), the Latin Vulgate was the only Bible to change this verse.

Here is an example where “full of grace” is used correctly.

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

What the angel said was that Mary was going to receive God’s grace which He would freely give her. She was highly graced. **She was to be receiving the grace that God alone could give. ** This grace would come because he said, “The Lord’s with you…the Lord’s with you.” Now that’s similar to what was said to Gideon, “The Lord is with you, O valiant warrior.” The Lord is with you, Mary, you’re going to receive grace, divine grace.

It had to be that way. It had to be grace. Why? Because Mary was unworthy. The Lord is simply going to give you grace. And people who receive grace can be classified under one term, they’re all sinners. If they weren’t sinners they wouldn’t need grace.

Some manuscripts add, and the New King James has it, “Blessed are you among women.” The older manuscripts omit that. Whether it’s in or out, it’s true, she was blessed. She wasn’t the blesser.

Change the Scripture to “full of grace” and it changes everything that Scripture teaches on this. **The Lord is with everyone who is a believer and righteous in His sight as Mary was.
**
Matthew 28:20
teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, **I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
**

you are very correct. But you my friend are a little ahead of me in scripture. Now back in up a few lines. To luke 28 And that is where you my friend will find. Again. Hail favored one The Lord is with you. THE LORD IS WITH YOU. FULL OF GRACE THE LORD IS WITH THEE. Kinda see where the Hail Mary came from don’t ya. And I also disagree with you, I agree with what the bible says Full Of grace and I feel as the Catholic Church that is was used correctly. Now here is the way I see it, the way the Bible says and the church agrees, which (By the way has the gift of the HS) or I go by you. What do you think Im gonna do? And again the bible never said Mary was going to receive Gods grace, if so please show me where. My bible said she already full of grace and the lord was with her. Not comming.

 

[rinnie]

Also when it says Blessed are you among women. How did you get she is the blesser out of that one Who said she was the blesser. I was always taught she was Blessed among women. Anotherwards no other women more blessed. Not sure what you mean here.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

St.Luke1:46"…and my soul magnifies the Lord"…how does a soul with sin magnify the Lord?

A quotation for you:​

“Laudamus Te
Benedicimus Te
Glorificamus Te
Magnificamus Te
Adoramus Te
Gratias agimus Tibi propter magnam gloriam Tuam”

This is after making confession of sins & sinfulness [see the liturgical texts for more confessions of sinfulness & the like]

So the answer would seem to be: **easily **

 

[Peter_J]

Gottle,

I, too, found that question (“how does a soul with sin magnify the Lord?”) to be pretty odd.