Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

[Volodymyr]

Eve, who was conceived without sin.

Dear Comrade Polo:

This is utter sophistry. Eve, mother of all men, was neither conceived nor born but made from side of Adam.

You fail as do all Catolics to distinguish between sinlessness and all-holiness of Mary which is apostolic teaching and the innovation of Immaculate Conception. But to urge us to believe that Eve had an immaculate conception is utterly absurd and lacking in knowledge of Christian religion.

 

[TLara]

I think its funny how protestants will close there minds at anything Catholic. We know that the ark of the covenant was a holy object it contained the word of God and the bread of life. If any one who was not worthy touched it they were killed immediately. Now you have Mary the new ark of the covenant, to house and carry the lord. Do you really think that God would make the new ark less holy then the old, do you think God would let his only son be tainted with sin because he was carried in a corrupt vessel. Mary’s blood flowed through our lord and gave him life. If you think even for a minute that mary was tainted by sin then you obviously don’t understand how magnificent our lord truly is!

 

[O.S.Luke]

I think its funny how protestants will close there minds at anything Catholic.

That’s an unfair (and inaccurate) generalization. It’s certainly not helpful to this conversation.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This is utter sophistry. Eve, mother of all men, was neither conceived nor born but made from side of Adam.

You fail as do all Catolics to distinguish between sinlessness and all-holiness of Mary which is apostolic teaching and the innovation of Immaculate Conception. But to urge us to believe that Eve had an immaculate conception is utterly absurd and lacking in knowledge of Christian religion.

Perhaps the wording “Eve was created without original sin” is more descriptive. But the typology remains the same, and the Church has recognized her as the NT type of Eve for centuries. And this is part of the development of the dogma of her Immaculate Conception, declared by Pope Pius IX:

MARY COMPARED WITH EVE
Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom “he who is mighty has done great things,” was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God—indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory. Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve with a wonderful variety of expressions. Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from original innocence and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one. (Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854)

 

[brkn1]

My dear friend
Perhaps the best scripture for your purpose is the Angel’s address to Mary as “full of grace”

(Luke 1:28) uses the Greek word “charitoo”, which means “highly favoured”, instead of the “full of grace” that you incorrectly claim as the Angel’s address to Mary.

The only “full of grace” that you will find in God’s Word, is the (John 1:14) description of Jesus: “pleres charis” = “full of grace”.

The transfer of this description of Jesus to Mary is adding to Scripture.
Only Jesus has the description of being “full of grace” in the Bible.

 

[fbl9]

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

 

[Canto]

Definition
to make graceful
charming, lovely, agreeable
to peruse with grace, compass with favour
to honour with blessings

Used one other ime in NT
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein **he hath made us accepted in the beloved. **

So we have the same favor?
Yeeeeeeeeepieeeeeeeeeee I am without sin
.:extrahappy: :extrahappy: :extrahappy: :getholy:

See how foolish what I just said is. Yet it is no more foolish than what has been proposed.

The word in Ephesians is **different **to the one in Luke.

The root of both words is charitoo meaning to fill /endow with grace. Echartiosen and likewise pleres charitos (lit full of grace) do not deal with time, agent, continuity etc.

Now unless your bible reads justified by favour, the favour in which he has favoured us etc it is grace and not mere favour.

Kecharitomene shows that Mary was filled with grace in the past (before the announciation), that it is a permenant fullness, with the effects ongoing throughout her life. Also it is passive meaning someone filled Mary i.e. God c.f. v.30.

The Greek perfect passive participle is vocative however so it has traditionally - Latin, Arabic, Syriac, Tyndale (even with all his non traditional renderings), Coverdale, and most recently the Christian Community Bible 2000s update etc - been condensed to full of grace rather than a long convolouted scentence.

pleres Chari****tos
echaritosen
Kecharitomene
chariti (when Paul says justified by grace)

If Mary was graced before the announciation, unless God woke up one day and though “hmmmm…” the logical time would be her conception, and this is supported by Tradition.

2 Thes 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

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.

God can make all grace abound is us (2Cor 9:8).

He can know us before we are even formed in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5).

He is able to preserve us from sin (Jude 1:24).

Under grace sin shall not have dominion over us (Rm 6:14).

We are justified (freed from sin) by grace (Rom and Eph).

Yes Mary needed a Saviour (Magnificat) but that doesn’t mean that it was not possible for anyone at all to be saved before Christ’s redemmptive passion.

If one is completely full of divine grace all their life, how could they sin?

As the grace for St Stephen in not permenant, when one studys Kecharitomene we see that only Jesus (the author) and Mary (the receiver) are the only 2 people in the bible completly and permenantly full of grace.

**St Ambrose of Milan **“Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a virgin not only undefiled, but a virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin” (Commentary on Psalm 118:22–30 [A.D. 387]).

**St Augustine **“Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?” (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Truly Mary was immaculately conceived.

 

[brkn1]

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

There is somewhat of a point in what you say. But still, David said, “2. My soul shall make her boast in the Lord: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad. 3. O magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together,” (Psalms 34:2,3)
Magnify must mean to praise and thank God, which even sinners should do.

 

[Peter_J]

This is the Scriptural evidence for non-Catholic Christians.

I don’t think I even know anyone who denies their existence.

 

[fbl9]

There is somewhat of a point in what you say. But still, David said, “2. My soul shall make her boast in the Lord: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad. 3. O magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together,” (Psalms 34:2,3)
Magnify must mean to praise and thank God, which even sinners should do.

you have some validilty too in this response…however in David’s case it he who is praising God…in Mary’s case it is her SOUL.a soul that is free of sin and is capable of praising God on a purely spiritual level,something DAvid could not do,because his soul was not capable of praising God due to original sin.

 

[Peter_J]

(Luke 1:28) uses the Greek word “charitoo”, which means “highly favoured”, instead of the “full of grace” that you incorrectly claim as the Angel’s address to Mary.

The only “full of grace” that you will find in God’s Word, is the (John 1:14) description of Jesus: “pleres charis” = “full of grace”.

The transfer of this description of Jesus to Mary is adding to Scripture.
Only Jesus has the description of being “full of grace” in the Bible.

First a slight correction: (Luke 1:28) uses a form of the Greek word “charitoo”.

Second, yes you are correct that in the original Greek the word used in Luke 1:28 (“kecharitomene”) is different from the phrase in John 1:14 (“pleres charis”). However, it’s not all that uncommon for two different Greek words to correspond to the same word in English: For example “theotokos” and “meter theou” are both translated “Mother of God”; and also, when speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit, we translate both “ekporusis” and “proienai” as “procession”.

 

[NDfan]

First a slight correction: (Luke 1:28) uses a form of the Greek word “charitoo”.

Second, yes you are correct that in the original Greek the word used in Luke 1:28 (“kecharitomene”) is different from the phrase in John 1:14 (“pleres charis”). However, it’s not all that uncommon for two different Greek words to correspond to the same word in English: For example “theotokos” and “meter theou” are both translated “Mother of God”; and also, when speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit, we translate both “ekporusis” and “proienai” as “procession”.

Peter you really need to understand Greek to have a complete understanding of the word charitoo.

Charitoo is the verb form of the noun charis. The root meaning of charis (“grace”) is “favor, acceptable, benefit, joyful,”. But charis has taken that idea one step further to reference a unique and completely divine type of “favor” that cleanses us, makes us holy, and fills us with the Holy Spirit. It is more than just how God feels about us, as God can somehow infill us with charis, which will then grant us the ability or power to be holy, loving, humble, kind, generous, forgiving or patient. This is called extended, improved meaning “grace” to distinguish it from “mere favor.”

The verb form Charitoo is one step back, and references the act of “making something favored (active)” or “being favored (passive).” These two are VERY close in meaning, but not exactly the same. The difference is that the verb charitoo which is used to describe Mary is never used in the NT of the actual act of “granting grace” or “making someone full of grace.” The verb references a “side effect” of grace, the “divine favor” that is ours as a result of grace (in other words, the verb exclusively references how God “feels” about us), while the noun usually references that strange, unique and powerful thing that goes way beyond feelings, which we call “grace” directly.

To further complicate the issue, in the Luke 1:28 reference, the verb Charitoo is a participle, which is a verb form that we don’t really have in English. A participle could be considered a “verbal adjective,” that is, it usually acts like an adjective (in that it adds an “attribute” to a noun), but being a “verb,” it adds an “action.”

So this verb, being perfect passive, adds the idea of “having been favored” to the person it is referencing in this case Mary. “Being favored” is now an “attribute” of how she is described (in the same way we might describe someone as slender, young, beautiful, short, or dark-haired).

The “perfect” part of the verb indicates it is a completed action (her “being favored” is not an ongoing action, that is, she is not gradually becoming more and more favored. It is a done deal - she is “fully and completely favored”). We see the verb charitoo twice in the NT. In Luke and in Ephesians. Every other use of the word grace in the NT is the noun form which as described above is GOD infilling us with grace to make us holy. Pleres charitos which literally means full of grace is the completed action of GOD filling with grace. Pleres meaning lacking nothing, perfect or to be full. In other words perfectly graced or perfectly filled with grace. The only place this is seen in the NT is to describe Christ in the Gospel of John. Some Alexandrian manuscripts call Stephen full of grace while the Byzantine ones call him full of faith and power. I think most experts believe it should be rendered full of faith and power in each instance though.

So in the final interpretation of Luke 1:28: “Highly favored one” is the correct translation. “Full of grace” is NOT an accurate translation, as again charitoo is never used of the infilling of grace in the NT. Saying Mary was highly favored using kecharitōmenē simply means that she was always favored and will always be favored. Not that she becomes more favored as time goes on.

 

[fbl9]

. Saying Mary was highly favored using kecharitōmenē simply means that she was always favored and will always be favored. Not that she becomes more favored as time goes on.

now we are down to what does it mean in that Mary “was always favored”?
since it is being said she was "always"favored that must mean she was favored by God since her conception…

 

[Peter_J]

Peter you really need to understand Greek to have a complete understanding of the word charitoo.

Charitoo is the verb form of the noun charis. The root meaning of charis (“grace”) is “favor, acceptable, benefit, joyful,”. But charis has taken that idea one step further to reference a unique and completely divine type of “favor” that cleanses us, makes us holy, and fills us with the Holy Spirit. It is more than just how God feels about us, as God can somehow infill us with charis, which will then grant us the ability or power to be holy, loving, humble, kind, generous, forgiving or patient. This is called extended, improved meaning “grace” to distinguish it from “mere favor.”

The verb form Charitoo is one step back, and references the act of “making something favored (active)” or “being favored (passive).” These two are VERY close in meaning, but not exactly the same. The difference is that the verb charitoo which is used to describe Mary is never used in the NT of the actual act of “granting grace” or “making someone full of grace.” The verb references a “side effect” of grace, the “divine favor” that is ours as a result of grace (in other words, the verb exclusively references how God “feels” about us), while the noun usually references that strange, unique and powerful thing that goes way beyond feelings, which we call “grace” directly.

To further complicate the issue, in the Luke 1:28 reference, the verb Charitoo is a participle, which is a verb form that we don’t really have in English. A participle could be considered a “verbal adjective,” that is, it usually acts like an adjective (in that it adds an “attribute” to a noun), but being a “verb,” it adds an “action.”

So this verb, being perfect passive, adds the idea of “having been favored” to the person it is referencing in this case Mary. “Being favored” is now an “attribute” of how she is described (in the same way we might describe someone as slender, young, beautiful, short, or dark-haired).

The “perfect” part of the verb indicates it is a completed action (her “being favored” is not an ongoing action, that is, she is not gradually becoming more and more favored. It is a done deal - she is “fully and completely favored”). We see the verb charitoo twice in the NT. In Luke and in Ephesians. Every other use of the word grace in the NT is the noun form which as described above is GOD infilling us with grace to make us holy. Pleres charitos which literally means full of grace is the completed action of GOD filling with grace. Pleres meaning lacking nothing, perfect or to be full. In other words perfectly graced or perfectly filled with grace. The only place this is seen in the NT is to describe Christ in the Gospel of John. Some Alexandrian manuscripts call Stephen full of grace while the Byzantine ones call him full of faith and power. I think most experts believe it should be rendered full of faith and power in each instance though.

So in the final interpretation of Luke 1:28: “Highly favored one” is the correct translation. “Full of grace” is NOT an accurate translation, as again charitoo is never used of the infilling of grace in the NT. Saying Mary was highly favored using kecharit?men? simply means that she was always favored and will always be favored. Not that she becomes more favored as time goes on.

Hi NDfan. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. It seems to me, however, that when you say:

So in the final interpretation of Luke 1:28: “Highly favored one” is the correct translation.

you’re actually contradicting what you yourself said elsewhere. “Highly favored” does not convey the idea that she “was always favored and will always be favored”, hence it isn’t the correct translation.

Also I’d just like to point out that the Vulgate does not use the same words for “kecharitomene” that it uses for “pleres charitos” (not that you claimed it did; I just want to set the record straight). The Vulgate renders John 1:14 as:

et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis et vidimus gloriam eius gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre plenum gratiae et veritatis

and Luke 1:28 as:

et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

latinvulgate.com/

(That’s all for now, but I might comment on other parts of your post later, time permitting.)

Blessings,

 

[NDfan]

now we are down to what does it mean in that Mary “was always favored”?
since it is being said she was "always"favored that must mean she was favored by God since her conception…

FBL that’s a great question. There’s no doubt that the conjugation of charitoo in Luke refers to a past completed action. But here’s the problem. If you apply the action of charitoo to Mary as being sinless then you also have to apply it to the ephesians. Mary may have been favored at conception but then the ephesians were told by Paul they were favored when he sent them his letter. There’s just no way around this.

Additionally being highly favored was never viewed as being sinless. It was always the infilling of grace that the church interpreted as being sinless. That Mary was completely filled with GOD’s grace from the moment of conception pardoning her for lack of a better word from sin. But the infilling of grace is the noun form charis which is the predominant use of the word grace in the NT. The only person who receives the fullness of grace in the noun form is Christ. So Christ was completely filled with GOD’s grace as we read in John:

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Full of grace is written as Pleres charitos which is the noun form of grace. Pleres meaning complete, perfect, lacking nothing. Mary simply is not described this way.

The full of grace interpretation came from Jerome when he wrote the vulgate using the latin words gratia plena for kecharitomene. Gratia plena receiving the English translation of full of grace. But this is incorrect.

The only other person as I stated that seems to have been full of grace was Stephen. But there also the manuscripts are not consistent. Some say full of grace and some say full of faith. A fair number of scholars across all denominations seem to be leaning towards the full of faith interpretation.

 

[Peter_J]

If you apply the action of charitoo to Mary as being sinless then you also have to apply it to the ephesians.

No problem. I apply the action of charitoo to Mary as being sinless, and I apply it to the Ephesians as being made sinless (just as all God’s people are in the process of being made sinless). “Kecharitomene” in the former case, “echaritosen” in the latter case.

 

[NDfan]

Hi NDfan. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. It seems to me, however, that when you say:

you’re actually contradicting what you yourself said elsewhere. “Highly favored” does not convey the idea that she “was always favored and will always be favored”, hence it isn’t the correct translation.

Hi Peter, no if you read my post I didn’t say highly favored does not convey the idea she was always favored and will be always favored. To the contrary being a perfect past participle means that she was always favored. What I said is that it doesn’t mean that Mary becomes more favored as time goes on. It’s a completed action.

Also I’d just like to point out that the Vulgate does not use the same words for “kecharitomene” that it uses for “pleres charitos” (not that you claimed it did; I just want to set the record straight). The Vulgate renders John 1:14 as:

et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis et vidimus gloriam eius gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre plenum gratiae et veritatis

and Luke 1:28 as:

et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

latinvulgate.com/

(That’s all for now, but I might comment on other parts of your post later, time permitting.)

Blessings,

Correct and I noted this in my response to FBL9. But I believe that both plena and plenum are variations on the same word in Latin meaning full correct? My Latin is quite rusty. Where the difficulty comes in is taking the Greek to Latin to English which ultimately results in the full of grace translation. But if we stay true to the strict English interpretation of kecharitomene then we would have highly favored.

The question then that comes back to us is does it mean Mary was sinless because she was favored at conception? The church as I mentioned to FBL9 always made the distinction that full of grace was the counter point to being sinful. That you couldn’t be full of grace and be sinful at the same time.

The problem with this is Christ is the only one who literally is described as being full of grace which we see in John’s Gospel. The noun form of the word charis (charitoo) means GOD’s infilling of grace so as to make one Holy. Christ is described as being Pleres Charitos, or literally full of grace, using the word Pleres as John does demonstrates a completeness, or lack of nothing. All Christians are described as receiving this type of grace in the NT. We are told that this Grace was brought to us by Christ. So then believing in Christ is in a sense an action on our part of receiving GOD’s grace which then makes us Holy. And this makes complete sense because we know that the only way we are justified before GOD is to believe in Christ. This is how we become Holy.

To quote John 1 again:

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace (pleres charitos) and truth.

Mary simply is not described this way. Additionally if we ascribe a sinless state to Mary through the use of the verb charitoo, then we also have to say that the Ephesians were sinless or became sinless when Paul wrote to them. This is the only other place in the NT that the verb charitoo is used.

Blessings to you

 

[PJM]

**Genisis 3:15:

(Known as the “Protoevangelion”)"

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

**This is the Scriptural evidence for non-Catholic Christians.

Reply: Godd question, Thank you

This is how God fullfilled that promise:
Luke Chapter 1:"26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, * the Lord is with you!” * 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. 30* And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31* And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33* and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34* And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” 35* And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born * will be called holy, the Son of God. "

What an awesome God we have! Amen

PJM m.c.

 

[NDfan]

No problem. I apply the action of charitoo to Mary as being sinless, and I apply it to the Ephesians as being made sinless (just as all God’s people are in the process of being made sinless). “Kecharitomene” in the former case, “echaritosen” in the latter case.

That’s a great way to look at it. But then that begs the question then, did the Ephesians ever commit sin after they received or accepted Christ? Or to say it another way: Do Christians stop sinning once they accept Christ as their savior? The answer is simply no and Paul relates to this in his letter to the Romans when he states that the very thing he doesn’t want to do he ends up doing.

That’s the reason we have Christ. If it were possible to never commit sin then we wouldn’t need Christ. I would make a correction to your statement. We are not being made sinless through Christ. We are being made Righteous or Holy by Christ. Righteous and Holy simply mean to be set apart. But that doesn’t make us sinless. A Righteous person can still sin just as Moses and Noah did.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter, no if you read my post I didn’t say highly favored does not convey the idea she was always favored and will be always favored. To the contrary being a perfect past participle means that she was always favored. What I said is that it doesn’t mean that Mary becomes more favored as time goes on. It’s a completed action.

You didn’t say it but it’s still true. “Highly favored” does not convey the idea that she “was always favored and will always be favored” (which is conveyed by “kecharitomene”, as you already admitted) hence it is not the correct translation.

Correct and I noted this in my response to FBL9. But I believe that both plena and plenum are variations on the same word in Latin meaning full correct?

Good question.

The question then that comes back to us is does it mean Mary was sinless because she was favored at conception? The church as I mentioned to FBL9 always made the distinction that full of grace was the counter point to being sinful. That you couldn’t be full of grace and be sinful at the same time.

The problem with this is Christ is the only one who literally is described as being full of grace which we see in John’s Gospel. The noun form of the word charis (charitoo) means GOD’s infilling of grace so as to make one Holy. Christ is described as being Pleres Charitos, or literally full of grace, using the word Pleres as John does demonstrates a completeness, or lack of nothing. All Christians are described as receiving this type of grace in the NT. We are told that this Grace was brought to us by Christ. So then believing in Christ is in a sense an action on our part of receiving GOD’s grace which then makes us Holy. And this makes complete sense because we know that the only way we are justified before GOD is to believe in Christ. This is how we become Holy.

To quote John 1 again:

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace (pleres charitos) and truth.

Mary simply is not described this way. Additionally if we ascribe a sinless state to Mary through the use of the verb charitoo, then we also have to say that the Ephesians were sinless or became sinless when Paul wrote to them. This is the only other place in the NT that the verb charitoo is used.

Blessings to you

See #36.