There's something about Mary

[kfarose2585]

It seems that a lot of people have questions about Mary, hence my slightly silly subject line.

I asked this question under “Protestants and the Virgin Mary” in the non-Catholic religions forum, but it didn’t get much attention: Where exactly do we Catholics get the ideas of Mary’s “immaculate conception” and “perpetual virginity”? Some have said that these are not biblical concepts, but I always thought they were. Anybody know the origins of these beliefs?

 

[Kecharitomene]

HEY…I don’t wanna dis ya, but you have some great questions that I would LOVE to tackle, but I think that in your best intrest I should just recommend a wonderful book that helped me understand the Marian Doctrines called “Hail Holy Queen” by Dr. Scott Hahn. I strongly recommend that you check this book out. It is available at Books a million, barnes and nobel, borders…etc…plus the public library might even have a copy not to mention Catholic Bookstores.

Dr. Hahn addressed so many of the issues in this personable and easy to understand delve into the Virgin Mary and her attributes that Protestants find so objectionable. There are some other works out there, but not many are in the form of a text book as is this. Read it and tell me what you think.

Pax Christi

 

[Sea_Knight]

kfarose2585:

Where exactly do we Catholics get the ideas of Mary’s “immaculate conception” and “perpetual virginity”? Some have said that these are not biblical concepts, but I always thought they were. Anybody know the origins of these beliefs?

Thanks for your questions, kfarose!

I’m sure you will get many more responses to your question, but I’ll get the ball rolling. I’m going to take each of these questions separately.

The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been the teaching of the Church since the very beginning. Your Protestant friends misinterpret the references to the “brothers and sisters of Jesus” as proof that Mary had other children (and therefore wasn’t a perpetual virgin). Hopefully, the following points will help explain why the Church insists that their interpretation is in error.

1. In Luke 1:34, Mary asks Gabriel “How can this be, since I have no relation with a man?” At this time, Mary is betrothed to Joseph. According to the custom of the time, she is practically “married.” It would be natural to assume that she would have children with Joseph. But her question implies that she has “no relation with a man” - neither in the past, nor in the future. The Church has always interpreted this as an indication that Mary had consecrated her virginity to God.
2. Jesus is referred to as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3). Although the Bible mentions “brothers” of Jesus, no one else in the Bible is referred to as “the son of Mary.”
3. The Bible refers to Jesus as the “first-born son” of Mary. Most Protestants falsely assume that this is proof of other later-born sons of Mary and Joseph. However, Exodus 34:19-20 reveals specific instructions for all “first-born” males. These rules apply regardless of whether there are subsequent children. The essential point of these laws is that the first-born male belongs to God by right, and must be “redeemed”. This is why Joseph and Mary had to sacrifice the two turtledoves (Luke 2:22-24).
4. When Jesus was on the cross, He entrusted His mother to the beloved disciple (traditionally thought to be John). The Gospel tells us that “from that hour the disciple took her into his home” (John 19:27). This would seem strange if Jesus had younger brothers and sisters, to whom He could entrust His mother.
5. While there are other arguments from Scripture that can be drawn in defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity, there is one that is very convincing to me, although not explicitly found in Scripture. It has to do with the reaction of Joseph, whom the Bible tells us was a “righteous man” (Matthew 1:19). An angel appeared to Joseph after he learned that Mary was pregnant, and the angel revealed to him the true identity of the child’s father. I can’t help but think that Joseph would look at his young wife very differently after this! To know that God had chosen his wife to be the mother of the Messiah, that God had brought about this conception would have been a “life-altering” experience. To be blunt, I cannot imagine Jospeh saying “Gee, Mary, I can’t wait until you have God’s Son so that I can have some of my own with you!” The very thought is preposterous, and it does injustice to Joseph’s reputation.

Hope these thoughts help!

 

[Sea_Knight]

kfarose2585:

Where exactly do we Catholics get the ideas of Mary’s “immaculate conception” and “perpetual virginity”?

Part II of my answer to your question!

Regarding the “immaculate conception,” this is a little tougher to defend from the Bible. Difficult, but not impossible!

For centuries, theologians wrestled with this issue. Scripture plainly teaches that sin is a universal reality (after the Fall), and that every human is in need of salvation. When Protestants hear about the Immaculate Conception, they instinctively think that we believe Mary didn’t need a savior. If she was “immaculately conceived” (and therefore sinless), why would she need to be saved? In fact, Mary’s own words “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior” would seem to indicate that Mary knew she had a savior!

The Catholic response to this might make the following points:

1. Of course Mary needed a savior, just like every other person. The only question is “when was she saved?” Protestants would agree that salvation only comes from the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. Salvation only comes from His atoning death on the cross. But the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says that God saved Mary, from the moment of her earthly existence, in view of the essential role she was to play in bringing the Savior to birth, and in view of the merits He won on the cross. In other words, we are saved “after the fact” of His sacrifice; she was saved “before the fact” but only in light of the fact.
2. When Mary is greeted as “full of grace” by Gabriel, it is a very unusual and significant greeting. Unfortunately, many modern translations weaken the literal meaning of the word that is used in the original Greek text. But the word used means “completely endued with grace, both in the past and in the present.” The Church sees this passage as evidence that Mary was filled with God’s grace, His presence, from the very moment of her conception. This grace freed her not only from the guilt associated with original sin, but from its effects as well. You and I find it easier to be selfish and self-centered because of the effects of original sin; Mary was completely free from this inclination. She was able to freely choose to be the Mother of the Redeemer.
3. I always like to use this with my evangelical friends. They would argue that a person cannot be saved unless they have a “personal relationship with Jesus.” The relevant question, then, is “When did Mary have such a personal relationship with Jesus?” Some might argue that it was when she said “Yes” to the angel’s message. But that ignores a very simple fact: God chose her from the beginning to be the Mother of His Son. St. Paul makes an interesting point: God chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before Him" (Ephesians 1:4 ff.). Now whatever else may be inferred from St. Paul’s insight, what can be said of all Christians in a general way can be said of Mary in a very specific way: God chose Mary, the very first Christian, before the foundation of the world to be holy and sinless before Him. Why? Because she was the chosen woman, the one predestined to be the Mother of the Savior. Since God chose her from the beginning, her “personal relationship” with God began at the moment of her conception, not that of her Son.

Again, hope this helps!

 

[jimmy]

31

Behold thou **shalt **conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. *

The statement made by the angel and the response of Mary are both fture tense, so you can say that Mary does not plan on having any “relations” with a man. This can be interpreted as a vow of virginity.

In the old testament there is a line that can also be aplied to this.

, This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, neither shall any man enter in by it; for Yahweh, the God of Israel, has entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut. Ezekiel 44:2

Protestants like to claim that Mary had atleast 6 other children because it refers to some as his brothers and sisters. But the word brother in the language of that time was very broad, it could have meant a variety of relationships. The bible is not very clear on the word brother. For example in Genesis Abram calls Lot his brother but Lot is not his brother, he is the Son of Abrams brother Aram.

“And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we are brethren.” And again, “So Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan, and Lot journeyed east: and they separated each from his brother.”

There are some other objections that the protestants have for the Virginity of Mary but they are all answered by St. Jerome in the 4th century so I will refer you to him.

catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume29/jerome2919.cfm

 

[kfarose2585]

Kech, I will definitely look into that book.

Dave, excellent insights! Thank you so much–that clarifies a lot for me.

Jimmy, same with you. The Biblical passages are helpful, and I’ll be sure to check out that URL.

 

[jimmy]

The Immaculate Conception is a very biblical.

14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. Genesis3;14-15

These verses are interpreted to be a prophesy about Mary and Jesus. Some say that this is a mis translation and it should say “He shall crush” but either way it does not matter. In order to have true enmity between the woman and the serpent or Satan, the Woman would have to be completely free of Satan. Sin causes us to be slaves of Satan and consequently she would have to be free of sin in order to have true enmity.

The second arguement is that Mary is the new ark of the Covenant. There are many instances in the bible where the writers are drawing comparisons between Mary and the Ark of the covenant.

Here are some examples

** 2 Samuel 6:2 **And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.
**Luke 1:39 **And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda

**2 Samuel 6:9 **And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?
Luke 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

2 Samuel 6:11 And the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months…
**Luke 1:56 **And Mary abode with her about three months…**2 **

Samuel 6:16 And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD [His Presence over the Ark]
Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

 

[Joanna]

This post by Doug C from another thread** Why we need Mary** compliments jimmy’s references to Luke’s Gospel:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4325

The ark was housed in a tabernacle overshadowed by the glory cloud.
The angel tells Mary that the power of the Most High will overshadow her.

The ark contained the written Word of God.
Mary contained the Word made flesh.

The ark contained bread from Heaven.
Mary contained true bread from Heaven.

The ark contained the rod of the true priesthood.
Mary contained the true Priest.

Add to that, the ark was built with an emphasis on purity because of what it would hold. What it held - SYMBOLS of Jesus.

Mary held the fulfillment of these symbols - Jesus - so why would there be less emphasis on her purity being that she had the fulfillment of the symbols the ark carried?

Hence, the Immaculate Conception. The Purity of the Ark which contained not a symbol of Jesus but Jesus himself in fulfillment.

Also, the ark could not be touched by man, which points to the perpetual virginity of Mary.