Understanding the Immaculate Conception

[ryanoneil]

To ryanoneil I would simply say that Calvin, Luther and others did not leave the Church because of the teachings on Mary (which they had been taught all their lives), and they are no more infallible than the Pope! I would also point out that the dogmas of the imacculate conception and bodily assumption were not in effect at that time.

Pax!

It appears VIR2010 is struggling with the perpetual virginity belief because of one scripture passage, but wants to believe. I’m just trying to be supportive of that desire.

Peace

 

[inkaneer]

To inkaneer I would point out that God is not a man, so He is not bound to your logic. He gave us the Scriptures for a reason, and they do NOT support the dogma of the immaculate conception (as even your own scholar (Ludwig Ott) admits).

To ryanoneil I would simply say that Calvin, Luther and others did not leave the Church because of the teachings on Mary (which they had been taught all their lives), and they are no more infallible than the Pope! I would also point out that the dogmas of the imacculate conception and bodily assumption were not in effect at that time.

Pax!

I realize that God is not bound by my logic but unlike you I also believe that God is also not bound by your logic either. Yes God did give us the scriptures for a reason and He gave us the scriptures thru His Church. That is unless you believe the protestant fairy tale that in the 16th century the Bible descended out of heaven leather bound, gilt edged, in th e King’s English and with the words of Jesus in red ink. The fact is that the Catholic Church gave us the Biblke. All the protestants did was profane it. As for supporting the Immaculate Conception. I say there is as much support for the Immaculate Conception as there is for the Trinity. Both of these dogmas were defkined by the Church not the Bible. The very fact that you and your protestant gumba’s accept the books of the New Testament en totto acknowledges the authority of the Catholic Church who selected those very writings and declared they were inspired. That authority is the authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven that Jesus said He would give to his Church. No protestant church claims this authority. That same authority was used by the Church in defining the dogmas of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception. As for Calvin and the other protestants they belieced in the Immaculate Conception BEFORE it was formally defined as dogma. These were not something made upe in the last 200 years. These have always been the belief of the church going back to Apostolic times. Read the early writers of the Christian (Catholic) Church if you don’t believe me. You know before the 5th century the dogma of the Trinity was not in effect either. Now. do you want to toss that out too?

 

[VIR2010]

It appears VIR2010 is struggling with the perpetual virginity belief because of one scripture passage, but wants to believe. I’m just trying to be supportive of that desire.

Peace

Well, it is logical to believe in the Immaculate Conception and It is also logical to be against it, I have chosen to place my faith in supportive scripture as well as the Church, I have peace in my heart with it.

 

[ryanoneil]

Well, it is logical to believe in the Immaculate Conception and It is also logical to be against it, I have chosen to place my faith in supportive scripture as well as the Church, I have peace in my heart with it.

That is the right attitude in matters of faith. Do you believe there is scripture other than Mt 1:25 and scripture about Jesus’ brothers, that discredits Mary’s perpetual virginity?

Do you think the Church and the Reformers might be wrong in their interpretation of Mt 1:25? Because it seems that the vast majority of the Christians in the past did not interpret it like the tradition you were raised in.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

To inkaneer I would point out that God is not a man, so He is not bound to your logic. He gave us the Scriptures for a reason, and they do NOT support the dogma of the immaculate conception (as even your own scholar (Ludwig Ott) admits).

This statement is under the assumption that Ludwig Ott speaks 100% Truth. Although, I certainly do thank you for thinking very highly of the Catholic Church and making the claim that Catholic authors all write the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. But, personally, I have yet to find one Catholic author (outside the Bible) that I agree with every single sentence. Fulton Sheen, Chesterton, Aquinas, Teresa de Avila, Augustine, C.S. Lewis (not Catholic but certainly Catholic writing), John of the Cross, Edith Stein (personal favorite), Razinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Balthasar, Kreeft… And these are among my favorite. I have even found Catholic authors who sway very liberally and detach from major Christian tenets. Do not comment on infallibility and what I mentioned about not agreeing 100% with the Pope because I guarantee that you will fall into a trap.

Anyway, Jesus (God) was both Man and God according to Christian belief. And why do you comment on people’s logic? I hate to break this to you but we all have the same logic. Logic is not relative. With that said, God is not bound by your logic either.

And Scriptures do support the Immaculate Conception. (All Caps on a word to stress it does not make it true by the way; it is just an act of desperation when arguing against Truth). I could care less what Ludwig Ott says about it. That is not to say I do not respect him though (although I have never heard his name). If he does in fact say that about Scriptures, he is at odds with Scriptures and most, if not all, other Catholic authors.

To ryanoneil I would simply say that Calvin, Luther and others did not leave the Church because of the teachings on Mary (which they had been taught all their lives), and they are no more infallible than the Pope! I would also point out that the dogmas of the imacculate conception and bodily assumption were not in effect at that time.

Pax!

You seem to forget that Luther also believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. I am not sure of the other Reformers but they may have believed that same thing. You also fail to understand the Catholic declaration of dogmas also. All Christians believed in Christ’s divinity before it was even declared dogma. Same situation with the Holy Trinity, Infallibility of the Church, the Eucharist, Mary, Mother of God… The list goes on. The dogmas were in effect but they had not been officially declared yet. In the hypothetical world which you seem to live in where the dogmas were not in effect, the early Christians (before the 300’s) would not have prayers to Mary. It would have been pointless unless they already knew these things, especally when they pray to Mary as the “Mother of God” back before Christ’s Divinity was even offically and infallibly declared. This is why we have Tradition. Scriptures back the spoken Word and vice-versa.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I made the decision to become Catholic a while ago after conviction from the Holy Spirit. I was raised under Baptist doctrine, was a Baptist minister, and was training to be a Baptist Pastor so I considered myself someone who understood the Word of God greatly, boy was I wrong. I have read the Catholic Catechism and am ready to embrace the Catholic Faith. One thing that I am still having trouble taking in is the Immulate conception of the Virgin Mary. I respect greatly, the Virgin Mary, and believe she is the highest of the Saints being the Mother of God. I am having no problem accepting the fact that she was Immaculately conceived because how can someone that is perfect come from someone who is stained with sin. the equasion would not match up. So I accept the fact that Mary was without blemish at the time of her conception, but one thing I am having trouble with is that she remained a virgin her entire life, because in Matthew it seems to state that Mary and Joseph were in Union after the birth of Jesus. I hope that you understand my struggle with this because I am converting from a denomination whuch is avidly against the dogma, I am trying to accept this based on faith, but am struggling.

Excuse my unintelligence but do you have a problem with the Immaculate Conception or her Virginity? I will take a guess and say the latter.

First off: Do not just accept based on faith; accept on both faith AND reason. Faith-illumined reason is the only reason why I am intellectually surviving.

I have had a conversation with a Baptist who was about as avidly against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity as you (and most other Baptists) are. So, I completely understand your struggle from an outside point of view. She is going through RCIA as I type this though!

Anyway, you correctly stated that Matthew “seems to state” that Mary was not a virgin after because it certainly does seem to state that. I agree with you. It says Mary and Joseph did not have relations “until” the birth of Jesus. That certainly sounds like it states the contrary of Catholic doctrine. “I am not going to stop practicing trumpet until my recital.” Am I going to stop practicing after? It is certainly a possibility but it will not happen that way. Will cows fast on Fridays? It is certainly a possibility but it will not happen. In all practicalities, these three certainly have both negative and affirmative possibilities but the only practical and relevant ones are the ones that we believe. Mary was a perpetual virgin. I will not stop practicing after my recital. Cow will not fast on Fridays.

We will not stop working for world peace until world peace comes along. Will we stop working for that peace?

Jesus did not have physical brothers through Mary. That I can assure you. Jesus, Mary, Joseph nor His own claimed brothers claim that Jesus has brothers through Mary. For me, there are way too many Mary’s in the New Testament! Makes me wonder if God did that on purpose so that we would have to trust the Magisterium because of the seemingly ambiguous statements of the Bible!

In any case, a brother of God is certainly a big deal. Why are they never mentioned more than once or twice those were in fact brothers of Jesus? Since you already believe in the Immaculate Conception (and rightly so ), those “brothers” of His would also be sinless and unstained, right?

I do commend you that you have asked honestly. Some people would just see that passage or two and come to their own conclusions that everything they have learned is false. Good for you!

Read “The World’s First Love: Mary, Mother of God” by Fulton Sheen. It is an awesome book. And it may enlighten you on not just the doctrines of Mary but alse their relevance in our lives. Doctrines are not just there to look good. Doctrines (whether declared or not declared) are there for us to keep our lives looking to the Source of Life, Truth and Love.

God bless you and your conversion!
Gregg

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I did not intend to respond to this thread anymore, however, I feel that I need to respond to some things, and so, here I am.

This reminds me of an episode of the Beverly Hillbillies (and, yes, I saw this episode when it first aired way back when). Jethro was going to be made a vice-president at the bank, but Granny stopped that after she had Jethro read her the definition of the word “vice” from the dictionary. I asked ‘What, exactly, do you think “virginal integrity” refers to (if not her physical hymen)?’, and you give a definition of the word “virgin”. I’m sure Granny would applaud your “clever” response, but it falls short of answering the question.

lol, touche sir. Let me then define what “Virginal Integrity” means for me Virginal integrity would mean maintaining the state of Virginity, i.e. not having had intercourse. See gen 24:16 below

[BIBLEDRB]Gen 24:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Do you define Virginity as maintenance of the hymen?

I reject it because the Scriptures don’t support the Catholic dogma.

Yes, they do. You simply apply your own personal hermeneutic to scriptures rather than accepting that of others, as is your right. But that issue would lead to an issue of authority (whos hermeneutics have more theological weight) which is not a topic for this thread.

Apples and oranges. God can raise up Apostolic Successors just as easy as He could raise up seed to Abraham. That has nothing to do with when Mary was sanctified.

Since you reject the authority of the Church to interpret scriptures I will accept this argument as valid. But what I was implying is that if you accept one, seemingly implausible, statement in scripture you must accept other, seemingly implausible, statements as well.

It would seem to me that, since Roman Catholics like to compare Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, why don’t you look at when the Ark was sanctified and made Holy? It wasn’t while it was being built; it was when the Tabernacle (and everything associated with it) was “overshadowed” (RC Apologists are quick to compare this overshadowing with the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit at the conception of Jesus). Can’t you guys be consistent with your types? As far as Kecharitomene goes, what in this word says this “fullness of grace” was from her conception?

Ahhh, there we go. A good argument. Valid, well spoken, and logical.

In reply, I would say that we are. TYPES are, by definition, poor images of that which they prefigure. Manna in the desert was simply food for the body, but Christ is the living Manna which feeds both body and soul. The Old Covenant was a legalistic (in a sense, I am not being definite here) covenant strictly for the Jews, while the New Covenant is entirely based upon the Love of Christ.

Were I to apply your “be consistent with your types” I would have to say that Christ, the new Manna and New Covenant, was either NOT the new manna come from heaven to give eternal life and the New Covenant in His blood, or that they were simply new bread for the body and new laws for the Jews. Everything in the old testament prefigured what would be perfected in the new.

To inkaneer I would point out that God is not a man, so He is not bound to your logic. He gave us the Scriptures for a reason, and they do NOT support the dogma of the immaculate conception (as even your own scholar (Ludwig Ott) admits).

I do not claim to have read Ludwig Ott’s work, but one theologian does not a doctrine make. Just as one Christian does not make a community. Individuals may err, the Church cannot. If you reject that teaching then so be it, but we will find out when we meet Christ.

To ryanoneil I would simply say that Calvin, Luther and others did not leave the Church because of the teachings on Mary (which they had been taught all their lives), and they are no more infallible than the Pope! I would also point out that the dogmas of the imacculate conception and bodily assumption were not in effect at that time.

Two things:

1. their reasons for leaving the Church were not in discussion. The purpose of bringing them up (I think) was to emphasize that even those people held up as pariahs of Christianity by Catholics (wrongly IMO) held to this faith.
2. Simply because it was not defined does not mean it was not present or true. The Church does not magically create truths, only define those truths already made present by God.