The Virgin Mary

[apophasis]

23 years before we knew for certain which books comprise the New Testament. The very same Holy Tradition that showed us which books belonged in the New Testament, 23 years later.

The Books of the N.T. were not disputed until the 1800s. And the decision was not made by a solitary Pope through a Papal Bull.

As I said before, the canon of Scripture has nothing to do with “oral tradition.”

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Ambrose merely reflected what all Christians, East and West, had LONG believed, namely, that Mary was Immaculate.

The Eastern Orthodox do not believe in the Immaculate Conception. But they do believe that Mary was NOT a sinner, namely, that God sanctified her THOROUGHLY prior to her
conception of Christ in her womb. They call her the All-Holy Virgin Mary, the All-Holy Mother of God.

The difference is that they believe she had Original sin for a while and then God at some point completely removed it from her and she never sinned.

In the Catholic Church, it is simply believed that God made her the
All-Holy Virgin Mary at an EARLIER DATE, namely, from the moment of her conception.

Sometimes hindsight is 20-20.
That is true in the Church too, esp with doctrinal development.
It is your PRIVATE OPINION that the Scriptures do not support or provide the basis for the Immaculate Conception, and nothing more. You have no authority as a private layman to make such dogmatic assertions.
I see the Immaculate Conception clearly indicated in the Scriptures, especially in the prophecy of Genesis 3:15.
Not only do I myself see it, but the Catholic Church has defined that this is the correct understanding of the Data. THAT settles it.
Arius and his followers were originally members of the Catholic Church. Arius was a priest in Alexandria. Many who followed his views were Catholic bishops. But the Church, at the Council of Nicea, DEFINED that Arius’s interpretations were ERRONEOUS.
THAT settled the dispute once and for all, though the Arians
fought like crazy to try to gain complete control over the Church.
But people with rebellious spirits do not accept the authority of Christ’s Catholic Church. That is their business.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[rlg94086]

Why? So you accept EVERYTHING he taught?

I don’t know. I haven’t read everything he taught. If he taught something contrary to Church teaching, then I wouldn’t accept it. I do accept what the Church teaches through Apostolic Succession.

Why should I accept anything you are teaching?

 

[guanophore]

Thank you! So then neither the canon of the N.T. Scripture or the ICBV is based on the authority of Apostolic “oral tradition” as you asserted in a previous post:

I don’t think that was said. In fact, one of the criteria for inclusion in the canon was that a book had Apostolic authority.

But earlier you said the IC was based on the authority of “oral tradition,” not the Scriptures.

It is not “either/or” but “both/and”. The Apostles interpreted the scriptures differently than the modern evangelicals do.

I am aware of RC’ism’s interpretation of Lk. 1:28 (although one could not come up with such an interpretation or conclusion via a normal reading of the text if he wasn’t first introduced to Catholic interpretation), but where else do you see that Luke was “well aware” of Mary’s IC and sinlessness?

This is a very important statement. The scriptures were never meant to be separated from the Apostolic teaching they represent. You are right that “normal readings” produce all kinds of non-Apostolic understandings because they are not first introduced to the right teachings.

You suggest Luke was introduced to these Marian dogmas through Paul, yet in all of Paul’s teachings found in his letters he never once mentions them. Does he even mention Mary? Why would he then tell ONLY Luke about these things; and why would Luke be so cryptic about those Marian dogmas in his account? Things just don’t seem to add up.

I am not sure about that either. I think it is possible that Luke is the only one that had extensive contact with Mary, by virture of his long stay in Ephesus where she lived with John. I think it is more likely that Mary shared all these stories with Luke directly.

So really, we’re back to square one. The ICBV, along with her sinlessness, are things that must be divinely revealed since no once could possibly come across that information on their own.

We believe this about all the teachings of God! We cannot know anything about HIm unless it is revealed to us according to His will.

It’s impossible to eyewitness an immaculate conception, hence it must be divinely revealed. Since it’s not actually taught in Scripture, to whom then did God personally reveal this event? When and by what means? Who claimed personal ownership of this divine revelation?

By definition, divine revelation that is public is not personally owned, or “private”. However, juest because you do not agree with what has been revealed in scripture on the doctrines of Mary, that does not mean it isn’;t there!

They hypostatic union and the Trinity are not “actually taught in scripture” either, but we see them there.

 

[guanophore]

It had nothing to do with nullifying sacrifice of the Cross. It had something to do with placing a purest of creatures (jesus) in a container which had been muddied.
Remember before sin entered the equation “EVE” was sinless. Is Mary the New Eve, and the one who was to carry whithin her body God incarnate, to be less than Eve.? I dont think so.
Blessings
Grace Angel.

This is true, but also falls short and has an Arian flavor to it. Jesus was not just “placed” within Mary, but drew his humanity from hers. She did not just carry HIm, but gave Him flesh of her flesh.

 

[guanophore]

The phrase “righteous before God” is explained right there in the same sentence: “walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” It has nothing to do with inherent righteousness or sinlessness. In fact, the very commandments and ordinances they blamelessly walked in constantly reminded them of their ever present sinfulness (see Heb. 10:1-3).

Righteousness comes by faith. This is how Abraham was accounted righteous. These people are righteous by faith, and lived out that righteousness by keeping the commandments of God. “I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days, that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.” Deut 30:19-20

Elizabeth and Zachariah chose life.

Sin is a choice, and not everyone chooses to sin. However, I will concede that people with this degree of sanctity are as rare as hen’s teeth.

Deut 30:19-20
How can you question God’s Word concerning this? Both Enoch and Elijah were men of faith (i.e., men who believed God’s Word) and therefore their sins were subsequently put upon Christ and were forgiven, redeemed, justified and sanctified in Him.

I don’t question it at all! In fact, this is what the Church teaches happened with Mary. She said herself that God was her savior. The merits of Christ’s saving grace were applied to her in advance, just as they were to Elijah and Enoch.

Deut 30:19-20
After Paul writes (by the Holy Spirit) that both Jews and Gentiles are “under sin,” he speaks of another righteousness: “the righteousness of God.” Not an inherent righteousness of men but that which is obtained “through faith in Jesus Christ for all those (“under sin”) who believe…being justified AS A GIFT by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:22-24).

I have no disagreement with this. None of the righteousness of the saints comes from themselves, but through faith.

In Rom. 3:25 Paul writes that according to His forbearance God “passed over sins previously committed.” That is, He passed over (“winked at”) the sins of O.T. men of faith, like Enoch and Elijah who were taken up alive, because their sins would be once for all dealt with at the cross of Christ along with the rest of the world’s sins (Jn. 1:29). Their righteousness was also gifted (reckoned) based on faith - not according to their personal performance.I said He is not one of Adam’s fallen posterity.

I can’t agree with your rendering of “passed over” as being “winked at”. I think it is more likely they were “passed over” in the same way the Jews were “passed over” by the angel of death - through the lamb’s blood. No, I am not saying that salvation comes by personal works of righteousness (you and I have been over that ground before!) Rather, that they had saving faith,a nd this was demonstrated by their personal acts of right-ness, following the commandments.

Certainly you’re not advocating that Jesus was born with “original sin” and that Joseph was His biological father. The Son received His humanity through Mary but not His sinlessness.

Meé génoito!!

He is sinless because He is divine. She is sinless because he took His humanity from her.

Jesus is a descendant and legally of the royal lineage of David via adoption and virgin birth as divinely revealed in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.That may be what Catholics assume and believe but it’s nowhere taught in Scripture; nor is there any proof that such a teaching was orally passed down to the Church by the Apostles.

Fortunately CAtholics are not limited to the divine revelation that is present in scripture, but also have the fullness of divine revelation from other sources. The fact that this teaching has been affirmed by the magesterium (teaching authority)of the church is sufficient “proof” that this teaching has been contained within the Apostolic succession.

Do you mean that you think Jesus is not, literally, of the seed of David?

I have posted on other threads showing that Rev. 12 is not referring directly to Mary but the nation of Israel (the descriptions of the “woman” in the text bear this out).

Since it is apocalyptic literature, the contents and symbols of it can have many meanings. A case can equally be made that the woman is “Mother Church”, as well as Israel, and Mary. Personally, I am much more influenced by the way Solomon treated his mother, and the Israelic tradition of the Queen Mother in the Kingdom.

And going along with your logic of John’s intimate relationship with Mary, you would then expect that he would have included her IC and sinlessness in his Gospel account or Epistles. But no, nothing!

Frankly, I am not sure what to expect that John would write. He writes very little about Mary at all, and clearly says that the world would not hold all the books that could be written. Just because it was not written does not mean it did not happen, or is not true.
However, I am with you that I sure wish it had been! However, if we did not have this to argue about, I am sure we would come up with something else!

Not even Rev. 12 states that the “woman” herself was immaculately conceived and sinless, but that she gave birth to a man child who is to (future, not now) rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and He was caught up to God and to His throne. The child, not the woman, was caught up to God and His throne. In Rev. 12 the woman herself is never seen in heaven but resides on earth.

I have to take issue with this. The woman is already IN heaven! This being apocalyptic literature, it is counterproductive to take the images literally or confine them to the space time continuum. However, John opens the passage saying “the heavens were opened” and that he “saw a woman clothed with the sun”. She may be the heavenly Jerusalem, the pure Bride of God…

 

[guanophore]

The “doctrine” of the Trinity was developed based on the authority of Divinely written truth: The N.T. Scriptures. The Scriptures themselves reveal literally that the Father is God, the Son is God and the H.S. is God. Within Scripture they are addressed as three separate Persons, yet all three are called God. The veracity of the doctrine is based on inspired writings and Apostolic authority. It was the study of these holy writings that the doctrine was formed and accepted as true.

This is true, but one must consider that the canon was not yet formed when this heresy emerged. There were holy writings that were helpful in developing the language and concepts, but it was the Sacred Oral Traditions, the teachings of the Apostles that were primary. This is the same source of the Apostles’ Creed, one of the earliest initiation formulations used, still used in Mass today.

This, however, is not true of either the IC or the sinlessness of Mary. They’re both based on man’s subjective reasoning subsequent to the Apostolic age. Unless you can prove differently. But even you agree that the IC was a controversy within even the Latin Church for centuries, settled only by a Papal Bull. Not on any Scriptural proof or that it was taught by the Apostles from the beginning. So they’re not really based on “oral tradition” but the authority of a nineteenth century Pope and positive, public sentiments.

The Pope is not permitted to declare anything that has not been handed down through the Apostolic succession. Neither is he permitted to pronounce anything (infallibly) that contradicts scripture, or that emanates from “subjective reasoning.” These are requirements for an ex cathedra statement.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Which Apostle does he mention taught the doctrine verbally? Does he actually quote an immediate “successor?”

I’m pretty certain like Jesus some things that the Apostles did were not written. These are what we Catholic called Tradition with a capital “T.” It was orally handed down from the Apostles to their successors.

To answer your questions, I would say all of the Apostles taught it.

The earliest record we have about Mary being virgin was written around 2nd Century.

“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).

Another record is the Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120)

And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’”

 

[guanophore]

Why? So you accept EVERYTHING he taught?

No, only those things that have been confirmed by the Magesterium.

 

[guanophore]

Why? So you accept EVERYTHING he taught?

No, only those things that have been confirmed by the Magesterium.

The Books of the N.T. were not disputed until the 1800s. And the decision was not made by a solitary Pope through a Papal Bull.

As I said before, the canon of Scripture has nothing to do with “oral tradition.”

However many times you have stated it, it is an erroneous statement. The canon was formed PRIMARILY from oral tradition! The content of the books was distilled from it, then they were included on the basis the use of them by the successors of the Apostles.

 

[NonDenom]

As some non-Catholics ought to like proofs from Scripture we give the following as a proof for the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” The meaning of this text according to all the Fathers and ancient interpreters, and the proof drawn from it would be as follows. The serpent is Satan, the woman is Mary the mother of the Redeemer and the seed of the woman is Jesus Christ. In this text there is said to be the same identity and of enmity between the woman and the serpent as between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. But the enmity that exists between Christ (the seed of the woman) and the seed of the serpent is absolute. Therefore so too is the enmity between Mary and the devil; but if she were in sin for any length of time this could not be so. Christ and Mary are joined in the same enmity against the devil, but if she were subject to the poison of sin this would not be so on her part.

I will give the same argument in other words. The enmity which exists between Christ and the devil is perpetual and excludes sin of every kind. But in this passage of Scripture the same enmity is is declared to exist between the woman (the Blessed Virgin) and the serpent (that is Satan). Therefore it follows that there must be a perpetual enmity between the Blessed Virgin and the devil, and this could not be if she were subject to sin of any kind.

Emnity comes from the greek word ay-baw which means “Hatred”. I’m a sinner and I HATE the devil. Are you saying the if Mary were a sinner that she could not have hated satan?

 

[jmcrae]

Emnity comes from the greek word ay-baw which means “Hatred”. I’m a sinner and I HATE the devil. Are you saying the if Mary were a sinner that she could not have hated satan?

That Satan could not have hated her.

Satan loves sinners - they help him do his work of messing up the world. Mary did not assist him in any way, and he hates her.

(If you want to make the Devil weep and gnash his teeth, just recite a Hail Mary, since even just the sound of her name makes him crazy. )

 

[Ginger2]

Quote: “(If you want to make the Devil weep and gnash his teeth, just recite a Hail Mary, since even just the sound of her name makes him crazy.”

This is an even better example of Catholics giving Mary credit for attributes that belong to God.

Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

 

[jmcrae]

Quote: “(If you want to make the Devil weep and gnash his teeth, just recite a Hail Mary, since even just the sound of her name makes him crazy.”

This is an even better example of Catholics giving Mary credit for attributes that belong to God.

Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

What has that verse got to do with what I said?

The Devil hates Mary because she never fell into temptation. He hates her name because she got by obedience what he hoped to get by rebellion - a crown in Heaven.

 

[guanophore]

Quote: “(If you want to make the Devil weep and gnash his teeth, just recite a Hail Mary, since even just the sound of her name makes him crazy.”

This is an even better example of Catholics giving Mary credit for attributes that belong to God.

Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

It is not Catholics that give that credit to Mary, but God. God has ordained that people should share in his attributes, and become Partakers of His divine nature.

Acts 19:15-16
15 But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”

Is Paul Divine, because Jesus shared His divine nature with Paul, and the demons recognize that nature? No, Paul is not divine, and neither is Mary. But both are a credit to God for their faithful witness to him.

In this same passage we read:

Acts 19:11-13

11 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them."

Is this from Paul? No, these miracles are from God, done by the hands of Paul. God has ordained that Paul should partake of the divine nature.

 

[Tomster]

Quote: “(If you want to make the Devil weep and gnash his teeth, just recite a Hail Mary, since even just the sound of her name makes him crazy.”

This is an even better example of Catholics giving Mary credit for attributes that belong to God.

Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

It is the definitely established and generally received teaching that Mary did NOT attain to Jesus’s measure. She did not possess grace in the highest excellence or in its fullest effects. The fullness of grace in Mary is understood in proportion to her own receptivity: the grace given to her corresponded entirely with her state and position: it made her the worthy Mother of God.

Tomster

 

[Tomster]

Emnity comes from the greek word ay-baw which means “Hatred”. I’m a sinner and I HATE the devil. Are you saying the if Mary were a sinner that she could not have hated satan?

I’ll let greater sources than I speak:

Modestus of Jerusalem gives the definition itself, in a remarkably clear phrase, when he says of Mary that THROUGH [emp. mine] her we: “are redeemed from the tyranny of the devil.”

St. John Damascene greets her: “Hail thou, through whom we are redeemed of the curse.”

St. Bernard: “Through her man was redeemed.”

St. Bonaventure: “That woman (namely Eve) drove us out of Paradise and sold us; but this one brought us back again and bought us.”

St. Albert the Great: " And so she was the only one to whom this privilege was given, i.e. of sharing in the Passion. To be able to reward her for it, her Son wished her to share also in the merits of the Passion; and to make her a sharer in the benefit of the Redemption, her wished her to be his partner also in the suffering of the Passion: in order that she, as she was a helpmate in the Redemption, might also be mother of all by reparation. And as the whole world in indebted to God for his Passion, so all would be their Queen for her compassion.

More later.

Tomster

 

[Good_Fella]

How would Mary’s having committed a minor sin effect Jesus’ mission? My salvation?

Mary had a vital part to play in our redemption. The Lord could not truly save us ( against all “righteousness”) without our free participation. He sought our voluntary acceptance of our salvation when he approached Mary through his messenger the angel Gabriel. Likewise, since the Incarnation of the Son of God was necessary for our salvation, the incarnation would not come about by force, but by the consent of the chosen one. Still the incarnation was ultimately brought about by the perfect faith and obedience of a human creature, the Virgin Mary who freely consented out of love to God’s salvific plan: “I am the Lord’s servant,” said Mary, “May it be to me as you have said.” (Lk 1:38)

Mary’s trust in God made her the first Christian believer to be redeemed, and it initially made it possible for all believers to be redeemed. When she pronounced her humble ‘Fiat’ her response was on behalf of the entire human race, just as Eve’s disobedience was. The Virgin Mary had a very significant part to play in our salvation provided she was sinless throughout her entire life. Sin is disobedience against God, and it led to our Fall through Adam and Eve. If Mary had ever disobeyed God, his proper plan of our salvation would have been ruined. The chosen one could not have completed his divine mission for the sake of “righteousness.”

“With the Mediator you are the Mediatrix of the world.”
St. Ephraem ( 373 A.D.)

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that the Virgin Mary was preserved free from original sin ( as Eve was created but not preserved, for sin had not yet entered the world when Eve was fashioned from Adam) from the moment of her conception, and so was made sinless. So Mary’s life and role all has to do with God’s holiness. Sin offends him. Mary, the God-bearer, from whom the New Adam would inversely be fashioned, had to be sinless in her close proximity with God and to maintain a friendship with him. Because of her physical and spiritual relationship with God she was granted the perpetual grace of sinlessness. She could not have cooperated with the chosen one if she had lost her friendship with God. Eve’s disobedience would have remained in effect. To undo Eve’s disobedience and restore the human race to a state of friendship with God, Mary had to show perfect and continual obedience. The New Adam was relying on the New Eve to undo the Fall, for it was woman who had seduced man in the garden of Eden and brought about the Fall. Our own individual salvation all depends on how we relate to God and cooperate with him in love and friendship. This is the whole meaning behind our personal covenant with God.

According to Old Testament typology, Jesus is the ‘New Adam’. As the first Adam brought death to the human race through sin and disobedience, the second Adam, who was without sin and "obedient unto death, brought back life. So too as Eve brought death to all of her descendants through sin and disobedience to the will of God, Mary, the New Eve, restored life by her perfect obedience. If Mary’s free perfect obedience and sinless life were not essential in restoring the human race to friendship with God, then there was no need for God to enter the world through the woman’s womb. But in order for us to be saved, the Word had to become flesh. The new Man had to be fashioned from the new Woman to reverse the Fall. And she had to be so unlike Eve.

I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall exalt my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

{Isaiah 51:10}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[NonDenom]

That Satan could not have hated her

.

Satan loves sinners - they help him do his work of messing up the world. Mary did not assist him in any way, and he hates her.

(If you want to make the Devil weep and gnash his teeth, just recite a Hail Mary, since even just the sound of her name makes him crazy. )

Hi
satan HATES us, he loves it when we sin. satan hates us because we are children of God, he hates God therfore he hates us.
satan loves it when people recite the Hail Mary because their focus is on Mary and not on Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

Hi
satan HATES us, he loves it when we sin. satan hates us because we are children of God, he hates God therfore he hates us.
satan loves it when people recite the Hail Mary because their focus is on Mary and not on Jesus.

Apparently you have been wrongly taught about the Rosary, and the Hail Mary. Mary’s focus is completely upon Jesus, and whenever we look to her, she directs our gaze to Him. She eternally says to us “do whatever He tells you”.