Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

[ckempston]

God the Son certainly did abide in the womb of St Mary. That which cannot be contained was contained in the womb of the holy Virgin. But St Mary was born with original sin like every other human being. She is the perfect example of how we should live our Christian lives, and she was like us in every way, including original sin.

There is one great difference.

Through her own free will–by grace–she chose to not sin during her earthly life.

That’s not Catholic doctrine, but you’re free to believe that if you choose. I have no reason to believe Mary didn’t sin during her life, and nowhere does the Scripture support it. It has no relevance whatsoever to anyone’s salvation.

 

[mardukm]

So then you also believe that she was born with original sin?

No I do not believe she was born with original sin. What I am saying is that she still made use of her free will not to sin. I’m sure she faced temptation just like the Lord. I’m sure she experienced doubts and worries as a mother. Yet she never let them stray to sin. A state of sinlessness does not deprive one of a free volitional assent to obedience. Adam and Eve were in a similar state of innocence, and yet freely disobeyed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

That’s not Catholic doctrine

I am Orthodox (the original catholics).

 

[Mickey]

I have no reason to believe Mary didn’t sin during her life

That is because you do not accept Holy Tradition.

 

[Mickey]

No I do not believe she was born with original sin. What I am saying is that she still made use of her free will not to sin. I’m sure she faced temptation just like the Lord. I’m sure she experienced doubts and worries as a mother. Yet she never let them stray to sin. A state of sinlessness does not deprive one of a free volitional assent to obedience. Adam and Eve were in a similar state of innocence, and yet freely disobeyed.

Amen. She is our example how to fight against the passions and to flee from sin. She is the Church’s greatest saint and she shows us how to live a deified life.

That is why she was born with original sin—like you and I.

 

[ckempston]

I am Orthodox.

My bad. I haven’t gotten into the Orthodox religion in great detail, but I imagine I would agree more with it than I do with Roman Catholicism. It would be impossible for me to become a Roman Catholic based on my understanding of Scripture, and all the extra dogmas, but Orthodox seems to me like Roman Catholic Lite, so my beliefs are likely much more similar to the Orthodox.

 

[mardukm]

Good questions.

So Christ had free will but could not sin. And St Mary had free will and could sin but chose not to.

Christ had free will but could not sin. The Blessed Virgin had free will and had no propensity to sin but, like Adam and Eve, had the possibility of being decieved to sin. But she chose never to sin.

So why do you believe that St Mary needed to be preserved from original sin in her mother’s (St Anne) womb?

This is one of the things I did not understand when I was not in communion with Rome. During my journey, I slowly came to realize that the dogma of the IC was not about Mary at all, but about Jesus Christ. The Blessed Virgin needed to be preserved from original sin (in the Latin sense anyway) for the SAKE OF CHRIST WHO WOULD TAKE HIS FLESH FROM HER. It was not for her sake, but for Christ’s sake, not that Christ needed her to be holy on order for Himself to be holy, but for the sake of the utter holiness that Christ embodied. It is like in the OT when the Tabernacle needed to be cleansed. It was not for the sake of God as if God needed it (as if God could not have done it Himself or could not have simply blown away all unholiness from the Tabernacle by his very Presence), but for the simple respect and dignity that divinity “deserves.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

but Orthodox seems to me like Roman Catholic Lite

The Orthodox Church is not Roman Catholic–and certainly not “lite”. It is the 2000 year old Church unchanged from the time of the Apostles.

I invite you to study and learn more about holy Orthodoxy.

God bless you,
Mickey

 

[ckempston]

That is because you do not accept Holy Tradition.

It’s hardly a Holy Tradition; you can’t find it anywhere before the 4th century. That can hardly be called Apostolic. It’s a new teaching, not from the Apostles.

 

[mardukm]

Amen. She is our example how to fight against the passions and to flee from sin. She is the Church’s greatest saint and she shows us how to live a deified life.

Yes, deification bears fruit in obedience, and perfect obedience to God is what Mary exemplifies for us.

That is why she was born with original sin—like you and I.

Must you spoil our agreement.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ckempston]

The Orthodox Church is not Roman Catholic–and certainly not “lite”. It is the 2000 year old Church unchanged from the time of the Apostles.

I invite you to study and learn more about holy Orthodoxy.

God bless you,
Mickey

No offense was meant by that. I simply meant that Orthodoxy seems much simpler, without all the extra requirements, such as believing in the Immaculate Conception, the Infallability of the Pope, etc…

 

[mardukm]

No offense was meant by that. I simply meant that Orthodoxy seems much simpler, without all the extra requirements, such as believing in the Immaculate Conception, the Infallability of the Pope, etc…

Yeah, they got less of the Truth.

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

I’m gonna stick my nose into this real quickly. I didn’t read the entire thread, so if I’m covering trodden ground let me know. I’m not sure where I heard this but here’ goes. We Catholics belive Mary was immaculately concieved, well there is a reason that she was. She had to be in order for Jesus to have been born without original sin. That is, sin is passed on through to the next generation by the father. ( Has any one else ever heard this) Any way, Mary having been concieved immaculately, was a pure and stainless vessel for the sinless Christ .

 

[Mickey]

Christ had free will but could not sin. The Blessed Virgin had free will and had no propensity to sin but, like Adam and Eve, had the possibility of being decieved to sin. But she chose never to sin.

Yes. That is what I said.

The Blessed Virgin needed to be preserved from original sin (in the Latin sense anyway) for the SAKE OF CHRIST WHO WOULD TAKE HIS FLESH FROM HER.

For the sake of Christ?

It was not for her sake, but for Christ’s sake, not that Christ needed her to be holy on order for Himself to be holy

Bingo. Now you’re comin around.

It is like in the OT when the Tabernacle needed to be cleansed. It was not for the sake of God as if God needed it (as if God could not have done it Himself or could not have simply blown away all unholiness from the Tabernacle by his very Presence), but for the simple respect and dignity that divinity “deserves.”

This is what I could never understand when I was in communion with Rome. God in His greatness, chose a woman–a human woman–to give birth to the Saviour of mankind. This woman was like us in every respect–including original sin. We can relate to St Mary. She is just like us! And she gives us the great example of leading a holy life by exercising her free will to abstain from sinning. It’s the most beautiful thing! Yes. It is all about the Holy Trinity. It is all about salvation history. And this includes St Mary and you and I.

I pray that you will understand this one day.

 

[NDfan]

Your argument cannot work from a Christological perspective.

You are claiming that Jesus is sinless because He is God, not because of the flesh he took from His mother. The problem with your position is that it assumes that God had an interest in Mary only at the moment of the Incarnation. However, you forget that Scripture states that God would MAKE FOR HIMSELF His own abode, a prophecy of His first coming.

But Mary did not represent the permanent place GOD would abide in HIS incarnate state. Scripture tells us that Jesus was born into sin but committed no sin.

What you are suggesting is that Jesus could have been affected by Mary’s sinful state requiring her to be sinless. That would mean that GOD can be tainted by sin which is impossible. This is where the argument runs into Jesus human nature vs HIS GODLY nature. And again I will refer right back to scripture which shows that when Jesus touches unclean people they are cleansed. It’s not the other way around. That people had to be clean to touch Jesus.

In the Old Testament, MEN with imperfect hands made an abode for God which needed to be purified before God rested upon it. What possible scriptural logic can you propose to make anyone believe that the abode that God HIMSELF made FOR Himself would not ALREADY be purified from the very first moment He made it? God already knew from the first days of Creation who would be the abode of his Incarnation. God began making this abode when God first formed Mary. From the first moment of her conception, God made Mary SPECIFICALLY to be the abode and receptacle of His Incarnation (or do you suppose God had any other purpose in mind for her?).

Again Mary did not represent the permanent abode for GOD. GOD also was not incarnate when HE resided in the Temple. There’s a big difference.

As far as other purposes for Mary, I do believe HE had other purposes for her. Are you proposing that Mary’s sole purpose in life was to bring forth the Messiah?

God was not some kind of passive agent in His Incarnation, brother. He had a direct, active hand in MAKING FOR HIMSELF HIS OWN abode.

And I don’t disagree. But where we differ in our thinking is the need for Mary to be sinless right from birth until she died. GOD abided in her as Christ for 9 months. After GOD left the Temple it was destroyed and rebuilt and destroyed again.

I pray you reconsider your position.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t think it’s about me reconsidering my position as I’m very open minded. I’m simply debating the meaning of Luke 1:28 and the need for Mary to be sinless.

I will ask you the same question I posed to another on this board. If Mary was sinless then why did she die? The wages of sin are death. 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

 

[mardukm]

This is what I could never understand when I was in communion with Rome. God in His greatness, chose a woman–a human woman–to give birth to the Saviour of mankind. This woman was like us in every respect–including original sin. We can relate to St Mary. She is just like us! And she gives us the great example of leading a holy life by exercising her free will to abstain from sinning. It’s the most beautiful thing! Yes. It is all about the Holy Trinity. It is all about salvation history. And this includes St Mary and you and I.

I pray that you will understand this one day.

I USED to believe as you do now - that Mary was about her being an example FOR US. So I already know where you are coming from. But the Holy Spirit changed my perception during my swim across the Tiber. I came to realize that Mary’s purpose was not primarily about being an example for us, or being a model for the Church, but primarily to be the Tabernacle of Christ. That was the purpose God in mind for her since the first days of Creation. That was the purpose God had in mind for her from the first moment He knit her in her mother’s womb. That is why I came to believe in the dogma of the IC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I USED to believe as you do

It is unfortunate that you changed your mind.

But the Holy Spirit changed my perception during my swim across the Tiber.

Interesting. The Holy Spirit revealed the truth to me as I swam out of the Tiber.

I came to realize that Mary’s purpose was not primarily about being an example for us, or being a model for the Church, but primarily to be the Tabernacle of Christ.

It is all of the above, my friend.

That was the purpose God in mind for her since the first days of Creation. That was the purpose God had in mind for her from the first moment He knit her in her mother’s womb.

Yes.

That is why I came to believe in the dogma of the IC.

That is why I could not accept the dogma of the IC.

 

[NDfan]

I’m gonna stick my nose into this real quickly. I didn’t read the entire thread, so if I’m covering trodden ground let me know. I’m not sure where I heard this but here’ goes. We Catholics belive Mary was immaculately concieved, well there is a reason that she was. She had to be in order for Jesus to have been born without original sin. That is, sin is passed on through to the next generation by the father. ( Has any one else ever heard this) Any way, Mary having been concieved immaculately, was a pure and stainless vessel for the sinless Christ .

Yankee if sin is passed on by the father then you are saying that the Holy Spirit when overshadowing Mary passed sin onto Christ. So regardless if Mary was sinless or not, the father, in this case the Holy Spirit, would have transmitted sin to Christ.

I know you don’t agree with that correct?? But that just goes to show how this logic does not hold up. The stain of sin as we read in scripture is passed from the seed of the man. Jesus did not have an earthly natural father. So even if Mary was stained with original sin it would not have passed to Jesus.

Scripture tells us that Christ was born into sin but committed no sin. We read nothing of this about Mary. It’s all gleaned by the RC because of the comparison of Mary to the Ark and the Temple. While this is an interesting viewpoint it does not compare.

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

Yankee if sin is passed on by the father then you are saying that the Holy Spirit when overshadowing Mary passed sin onto Christ. So regardless if Mary was sinless or not, the father, in this case the Holy Spirit, would have transmitted sin to Christ.

I know you don’t agree with that correct?? But that just goes to show how this logic does not hold up. The stain of sin as we read in scripture is passed from the seed of the man. Jesus did not have an earthly natural father. So even if Mary was stained with original sin it would not have passed to Jesus.

Scripture tells us that Christ was born into sin but committed no sin. We read nothing of this about Mary. It’s all gleaned by the RC because of the comparison of Mary to the Ark and the Temple. While this is an interesting viewpoint it does not compare.

Well, ah, yes. I mean, yes, the Holy Spirit had no sin to pass on, and Jesus had no human father. I wish I had a better understanding of the idea I posted. It was not mine, I heard it sometime ago, and it made perfect sense when I heard it. I wish I could do it justice here. I was hoping someone else here might be familiar with it. Quick question, where does it say " Christ was born into sin". Thanks SY

 

[ckempston]

I’m gonna stick my nose into this real quickly. I didn’t read the entire thread, so if I’m covering trodden ground let me know. I’m not sure where I heard this but here’ goes. We Catholics belive Mary was immaculately concieved, well there is a reason that she was. She had to be in order for Jesus to have been born without original sin. That is, sin is passed on through to the next generation by the father. ( Has any one else ever heard this) Any way, Mary having been concieved immaculately, was a pure and stainless vessel for the sinless Christ .

Wrong. This is real simple:

If God could stop Mary from inheriting Original Sin, he could skip a step and stop it directly at Jesus. The Catholic reasoning is nothing but special pleading.