The Immaculate Conception

[Luke1_48]

My bros and sises in Christ. Soon it will be the Immaculate Conception; a doctrine that was declared 150 years ago! I have some Protestants, they’re my father’s friends, who say that this doctrine has no roots in the Bible, can anyone help? Peace out!

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Try:

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[michaelp]

Gerry Hunter:

Try:

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Blessings,

Gerry

Hey, I just read this post and the reference. I am a Protestant who is interested in this subject. The reference above says that the Biblical support is from Luke 1:28.

I am not trying to be difficult, but is that really the only biblical defense for the doctrine? If so, don’t you find that a little strange? If I was a first time reader, I would NEVER come close to interpreting that passage as teaching that Mary was born without original sin. That I ALOT to get out of one Greek word don’t you think.

Here is the reference for the gentleman who asked the question:

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Thanks for letting be browse here all and have a great Thanksgiving.

Michael

 

[Todd_Easton]

The appropriateness of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception can be shown with these two ideas:

1. Mary, the second Eve.
   The first man and woman, Adam and Eve, were created sinless but were disobedient early on and became the cause of death for the human race. The second Adam and Eve, Jesus and Mary, were conceived sinless and remained obedient until death and became the cause of salvation for the human race.
2. Mary, the ark of the New Covenant.
   The ark of the Old Covenant, which was to carry the words of God written in stone, was covered inside and out with purest gold; Mary, the ark of the New Covenant, who was to carry in her womb the Word of God incarnate was created immaculate, without the stain of Original Sin.

Scriptural and historical support for both of the above ideas can be found in Scott Hahn’s book, Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God. If you can’t find a copy in your local library or bookstore, Amazon carries it: (www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385501684/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-1599127-0336767)
For a discussion of the parallel between Adam and Eve and Jesus and Mary, see St. Irenaeus of Lyon’s work, Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 21, paragraph 10 and chapter 22, paragraph 4, written about A.D. 189, (bible.crosswalk.com/History/AD/EarlyChurchFathers/Ante-Nicene/Irenaeus/view.cgi?file=anf01-60.htm&size=20&start=195427)

 

[prodromos]

The Orthodox Church flatly rejects the dogma of the Immaculate Conception because it was absolutely necessary for Christ to take on our injured nature in order to heal it. If Mary was free from our injured nature then so was Christ, and His death and resurrection would have done nothing for us.

“For we have not a high priest not able to sympathise with our infirmities, but tempted in all things in like manner, sin apart.” Hebrews 4:15

John

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

michaelp:

I am not trying to be difficult, but is that really the only biblical defense for the doctrine? If so, don’t you find that a little strange? If I was a first time reader, I would NEVER come close to interpreting that passage as teaching that Mary was born without original sin. That I ALOT to get out of one Greek word don’t you think.

Well, you must remember that the teaching of the Church is that Holy Scripture is a part of, but not the totality of, the Deposit of the Faith. The Church does not insist that only that which is directly from Holy Scripture is to be believed, although certainly it must, and no teaching of the Church can contradict any part of the Deposit of the Faith, Holy Scripture (as a whole, not isolated proof-texts) included. So doctrine need not be defined exclusively from Holy Scripture, and there is no need to get a lot out of a single passage. But the doctrine in question does not contradict the particular passage.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

I thought is was a dogma, not a doctrine.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Pro-Life_Teen:

I thought is was a dogma, not a doctrine.

Well, it probably is, and maybe a doctrine, too. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

…
But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church – but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines [emphasis added] solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.
…

One thing for sure: It is to be believed by the faithful.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[metal1633]

prodromos:

The Orthodox Church flatly rejects the dogma of the Immaculate Conception because it was absolutely necessary for Christ to take on our injured nature in order to heal it. If Mary was free from our injured nature then so was Christ, and His death and resurrection would have done nothing for us.

“For we have not a high priest not able to sympathise with our infirmities, but tempted in all things in like manner, sin apart.” Hebrews 4:15

JohnNo quite right.

The Orthodox liturgical tradition venerates the Most Holy Mother of God as “All-Immaculate” and “Most Immaculate” While it is technically true to say that Orthodox believe Mary was conceived immaculately, Orthodox do not believe in the same idea of original sin as the West, and they believe all babies are born immaculate. Sin is not considered ontological in Orthodoxy, only the tendency toward it. (This tendency is referenced by the phrase, “ancestral curse,” which sometimes leads to confusion on the Orthodox view of the fall.) Mary is considered sinless in the Orthodox Church because it is believed that the grace of God allowed her to not sin, thereby remaining immaculate. The difference between the Catholic and Orthodox traditions in this regard lies precisely in the nature of Original Sin itself.

The Eastern Fathers especially understood Original Sin ONLY in terms of the inherited impact of this sin upon humanity e.g. death and conscupiscence.

  They would see it as impossible for someone to inherit the actual stain or guilt of a sin committed by another, even if it was the forefather Adam.

  So we are not born with any stain of a sin committed by someone else, but only with the effects of that sin that we experience in the human nature that we have inherited.

  Therefore, the Mother of God never had any stain of any sin, original or actual, on her soul, according to the faith of the Church, especially as celebrated in the liturgical tradition of the Eastern Church.

 

[Todd_Easton]

prodromos:

The Orthodox Church flatly rejects the dogma of the Immaculate Conception because it was absolutely necessary for Christ to take on our injured nature in order to heal it. If Mary was free from our injured nature then so was Christ, and His death and resurrection would have done nothing for us.
“For we have not a high priest not able to sympathise with our infirmities, but tempted in all things in like manner, sin apart.” Hebrews 4:15

The Orthodox seem to pridefully reject anything the Catholic Church does without consulting them.

Jesus and Mary were like us in all things except personal sin and concupiscence (the disordered appetites or desires that are the consequences of original sin and which produce an inclination to sin within us).

From St. Ephraim’s Nisibene Hyms, hymn number 27, verse 8, written about A.D. 370:You alone and your Mother

are more beautiful than any others;
For there is no blemish in you,
nor any stains upon your Mother.
Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:493. The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.[see note below] By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long. “Let it be done to me according to your word…”

note:

Cfr. S. Germanus of Constantinople, Hom. in Annunt. Deiparae: PG 98, 328 A; In Dorm. 2: col. 357.
Anastasius Antioch., Serm. 2 de Annunt., 2: PG 89, 1377 AB; Serm. 3, 2: col. 1388 C.

• S. Andreas Cret., Can. in B. V. Nat. 4: PG 97, 1321 B. In B. V. Nat., 1: col. 812 A. Hom. in dorm. 1: col. 1068 C.
• S. Sophronius, Or. 2 in Annunt., 18: PG 87 (3), 3237 BD.

 

[PhilVaz]

Luke 1:28 is a start, and I might find it strange as a proof text if I wasn’t aware of the many Church Fathers who allude to this verse in their belief in the holiness of the Blessed Virgin Mary. See article below.

There are other biblical parallels too, such as Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant (2 Sam 6 with Luke 1-2), compared with the Ark of the Old Covenant which was the holiest object of Israel that also held the “presence of God.”

Go to Google, type in “Kecharitomene” and you will find this

The Meaning of Kecharitomene

A good summary of the meaning and the allusions made by the Fathers.

Phil P

 

[prodromos]

Todd Easton:

The Orthodox seem to pridefully reject anything the Catholic Church does without consulting them.

Pride has nothing to do with it. We simply do as Paul instructed us;“So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold fast the instructions which ye have been taught, whether by word or by our letter.” (2Thess 2:15)

The dogma of the immaculate conception is alien to Orthodox soteriology, ecclesiology and theology (they are all tightly interconnected, mess with one and you mess with the lot).

John.

 

[mayra_hart]

Biblical Basis

As we saw in the first article, Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy of the Messiah (“Seed of the woman”) and His Virgin Mother (the “woman”). Notice that God says “I will put enmity between you (the serpent) and the woman”, that is, between Satan and Mary! God foretold in the Garden that He would put enmity between the Devil and the Mother of the Messiah. Satan would be enemies not only with Mary’s Son, but with Mary herself!

Now the Bible says that sin makes us enemies of God (Mt 12:30; Ro 5:8-10; James 4:4) and children of the Devil (Jn 8:44; I Jn 3:10). A sinner is not Satan’s enemy, but his ally–even his “child”, or seed! Were Mary ever a sinner, she would not be the devil’s enemy, as God had decreed; she would have been the devil’s daughter and the enemy of God-the enemy of her own Son! God’s promise to put enmity between her and the ancient Serpent would then be a lie!

Yet God cannot lie, and His word always comes to pass (Is 55:10). So He did indeed put enmity between Satan and the Woman by preserving the Woman from all sin, original and actual. Mary is not a child of the Devil; by God’s Will she is a daughter of God from the beginning of her existence and the ally of her Seed against the evil one.

In Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as “full of grace”. Protestant translations often render this as “highly favored”, but this is a weak, inaccurate translation. The Greek term here is kecharitomene, a perfect present participle of the verb charitoo, which denotes “grace”. A perfect participle indicates an action completed in the past with existing results, and a present participle denotes continuous or repeated action.

So kecharitomene means “you who were and continue to be full of and completed in grace”. Now grace is not mere unmerited favor, but God’s gift of spiritual life and communion with Himself. Sin and grace are opposed (Romans 5:20-21), and grace saves us from sin (Eph 2:5, 8). So Mary’s fullness of grace indicates a complete absence of sin. Thus Luke 1:28 provides a second hint at Mary’s sinlessness. We also see a type of Mary’s sinlessness in the holiness of the Ark of the Covenant. The original ark was clearly a holy vessel. God meticulously outlined the construction (Ex 25:10-22) and the Holy Spirit actually inspired the artisan who formed it (31:2-3)! It was made from the finest, purest materials and consecrated to the service of God in the Tabernacle. The Ark had to be perfect and holy, worthy to bear the awesome Presence of the Holy One of Israel. It was so holy only a few could touch it (Num 4:15, 2 Sam 6:2-7).