Immaculate Conception of Mary

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 22, 2008

My continuing studies revealed this interesting comment made in one of the Catechism companion books that one of my Catholic teachers graciously gave to me. It's in the chapter on the Communion of Saints and the discussion turns briefly to Mary and the Immaculate Conception. In the middle of page 238, I read this remarkable sentence: "This doctrine is not expressly dealt with anywhere in the Bible, nor was it preached by the Apostles, and for many centuries it was not mentioned by the Church." (The Handbook of Catholic Faith, page 238)

Now, a bit later, the authors continue, "Gradually as the idea of this dogma began to develop among the faithful, theologians submitted the point to close examination and finally, the view then generally prevailing was formally pronounced as dogma of the Church by His Holiness Pope Pius IX in 1854." (ditto).

This, IMHO, might suggest that the Catholic apologetic that it is Apostolic, was ALWAYS taught by the Church, is biblical and firmly rooted in the Catholic Denomination's own "Fathers" is perhaps not even supported by the Catholic Church? At least not for this particular new, unique dogma of the CC.

I just happened upon that in my studies and thought it might be interesting to discuss.

Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah

.

Sphinx777 · Oct 23, 2008

The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic dogma, the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus without any stain ("macula" in Latin) of original sin. The dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin. In the words of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, "she was free from any personal or hereditary sin". Her immaculate conception in the womb of her mother, by normal sexual intercourse, should not be confused with the doctrine of the virginal conception of her son Jesus.

The feast of the Immaculate Conception, celebrated on December 8, was established as a universal feast in 1476 by Pope Sixtus IV. He did not define the doctrine as a dogma, thus leaving Roman Catholics freedom to believe in it or not without being accused of heresy; this freedom was reiterated by the Council of Trent. The existence of the feast was a strong indication of the Church's belief in the Immaculate Conception, even before its 19th century definition as a dogma.

In the Roman Catholic Church, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception is a Holy Day of Obligation, except where conferences of bishops have decided, with the approval of the Holy See, not to maintain it as such. It is a public holiday in some countries where Roman Catholicism is predominant e.g. Italy. In the Philippines, although this is not a public holiday, the predominance of Catholic Schools make it almost a holiday.

The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus, on December 8, 1854. The Roman Catholic Church believes the dogma is supported by Scripture (e.g. Mary's being greeted by Angel Gabriel as "full of grace" or "highly favoured"), as well as either directly or indirectly by the writings of many of the Church Fathers, as well as sensus fidei and often calls Mary the Blessed Virgin (Luke 1:48). Catholic theology maintains that, since Jesus became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, it was fitting that she be completely free of sin for expressing her fiat. (Ott, Fund., Bk 3, Pt. 3, Ch. 2, §3.1.e).

For the Roman Catholic Church the dogma of the Immaculate Conception gained additional significance from the apparitions of Our Lady of Lourdes in 1858. In Lourdes a 14-year-old girl, Bernadette Soubirous, claimed a beautiful lady appeared to her. The lady identified herself as "the Immaculate Conception" and the faithful believe her to be the Blessed Virgin Mary.

In this sense, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception defined by Pope Pius IX is also viewed as a key example of the use of sensus fidelium shared by the faithful and the Magisterium rather than pure reliance on Scripture and tradition. The Vatican quotes in this context Fulgens Corona, where Pius XII supported such a faith:

"If the popular praises of the Blessed Virgin Mary be given the careful consideration they deserve, who will dare to doubt that she, who was purer than the angels and at all times pure, was at any moment, even for the briefest instant, not free from every stain of sin?

Now, the Roman Catholic tradition has a well established philosophy for the study of the Immaculate Conception and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary via the field of Mariology with Pontifical schools such as the Marianum specifically devoted to this task.

winsome · Oct 23, 2008

According to Wayne Ariss in his response to many of Lorraine Boettner's anti-Catholic accusations:

The Immaculate Conception of Mary (meaning the doctrine that she was conceived free from stain of original sin) goes back at least to St. Ephraim of Nisbis, who wrote in 370 AD that Mary was "immune from all stain...no spot...nor any taint" could be found in her. Various other Patristic Fathers also described Mary in like terms---St. Ambrose said she was "free from all stain of sin"; Severus of Antioch said she was "pure from all taint"; Sophronius of Jerusalem called her "pre-purified"; Andrew of Crete called her the "pure and Immaculate Virgin"; and Theognastes of Constantinople said she was "conceived by a sanctifying action".

St. Ambrose was 4th century. I don't know the dates of the others he quoted. So writings of the Fathers on this do go back quite early.

Remember that until Constantine the Church was persecuted and also under severe attack by many heresies. These tended to be concerned with the nature of Christ rather than the role of Mary, for example Gnosticism and Arianism. So the writings and accounts of those times that survive would be about these issues.

The understanding of the Church on many subjects developed over time through study and prayer. If we go into a very dim room, at first we might only see a few shapes but as our eyes become adjusted we see more and more detail. So too with reflection on scripture and what has been handed down some doctrines become clearer.

valiant007 · Oct 23, 2008

If she had been then that would put her on the same level as Yeshua, Jesus!

Immaculate conception would have made her sinless, how then did she call out in the magnificat when she met Elisabeth who was carrying Yeshua's prophet...'my soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour'?
She was not immaculately conceived, she was born like we are in sin and shaped in iniquity, hence the cry..my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour'

Blessings

David

winsome · Oct 23, 2008

valiant007 said:
If she had been then that would put her on the same level as Yeshua, Jesus!

Immaculate conception would have made her sinless, how then did she call out in the magnificat when she met Elisabeth who was carrying Yeshua's prophet...'my soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour'?
She was not immaculately conceived, she was born like we are in sin and shaped in iniquity, hence the cry..my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour'

Blessings

David

Mary needed a Saviour, as we all do, but in her case she was redeemed at the moment of her conception.

The Catholic Catechism says:

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

She was preserved (saved) from the effects of original sin through the saving power of Christ. Hence she could cry out "my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour"

narnia59 · Oct 23, 2008

valiant007 said:
If she had been then that would put her on the same level as Yeshua, Jesus!

Nope, simply the same level as the newly created Eve.

MamaZ · Oct 23, 2008

No mention of a newly created Eve in scripture..

MamaZ · Oct 23, 2008

We do not need an new Eve since sin and death came through Adam and Spirit and life comes through Christ.

narnia59 · Oct 23, 2008

MamaZ said:
We do not need an new Eve since sin and death came through Adam and Spirit and life comes through Christ.

And sin came to Adam through Eve, and Christ came to us through Mary.

MamaZ · Oct 23, 2008

Sin did not enter in until Adam sinned.. This is when the eyes were opened.. Mary did not bring us Christ Mary birthed the word made flesh.. God sent Jesus..

narnia59 · Oct 23, 2008

MamaZ said:
Sin did not enter in until Adam sinned.. This is when the eyes were opened.. Mary did not bring us Christ Mary birthed the word made flesh.. God sent Jesus..

Interesting how now you're writing Eve out of the Genesis story. Eve became the servant of Satan which brought sin to Adam. God sent us Jesus through His servant Mary.

MamaZ · Oct 23, 2008

Eve was deceived this is true.. But sin did not enter in until Adam. This is why we have the New Adam.. Christ. We see no mention of a new eve for it is not through the flesh that any man is saved but through the Spirit.

MamaZ · Oct 23, 2008

Adam sinned all by himself..

narnia59 · Oct 23, 2008

MamaZ said:
Adam sinned all by himself..

Hmm, no role for the serpent, no role for Eve. Let's just remove anything we need to make things make sense in our view.

narnia59 · Oct 23, 2008

MamaZ said:
Eve was deceived this is true.. But sin did not enter in until Adam. This is why we have the New Adam.. Christ. We see no mention of a new eve for it is not through the flesh that any man is saved but through the Spirit.

It is through the Word made flesh we are saved.....

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 23, 2008

winsome said:
My continuing studies revealed this interesting comment made in one of the Catechism companion books that one of my Catholic teachers graciously gave to me. It's in the chapter on the Communion of Saints and the discussion turns briefly to Mary and the Immaculate Conception. In the middle of page 238, I read this remarkable sentence: "This doctrine is not expressly dealt with anywhere in the Bible, nor was it preached by the Apostles, and for many centuries it was not mentioned by the Church." (The Handbook of Catholic Faith, page 238)

Now, a bit later, the authors continue, "Gradually as the idea of this dogma began to develop among the faithful, theologians submitted the point to close examination and finally, the view then generally prevailing was formally pronounced as dogma of the Church by His Holiness Pope Pius IX in 1854." (ditto).

This, IMHO, might suggest that the Catholic apologetic that it is Apostolic, was ALWAYS taught by the Church, is biblical and firmly rooted in the Catholic Denomination's own "Fathers" is perhaps not even supported by the Catholic Church? At least not for this particular new, unique dogma of the CC.

.

Click to expand...

According to Wayne Ariss:

The Immaculate Conception of Mary (meaning the doctrine that she was conceived free from stain of original sin) goes back at least to St. Ephraim of Nisbis, who wrote in 370 AD that Mary was "immune from all stain...no spot...nor any taint" could be found in her. Various other Patristic Fathers also described Mary in like terms---St. Ambrose said she was "free from all stain of sin"; Severus of Antioch said she was "pure from all taint"; Sophronius of Jerusalem called her "pre-purified"; Andrew of Crete called her the "pure and Immaculate Virgin"; and Theognastes of Constantinople said she was "conceived by a sanctifying action".

St. Ambrose was 4th century. I don't know the dates of the others he quoted. So writings of the Fathers on this do go back quite early.

Remember that until Constantine the Church was persecuted and also under severe attack by many heresies. These tended to be concerned with the nature of Christ rather than the role of Mary, for example Gnosticism and Arianism. So the writings and accounts of those times that survive would be about these issues.

The understanding of the Church on many subjects developed over time through study and prayer. If we go into a very dim room, at first we might only see a few shapes but as our eyes become adjusted we see more and more detail. So too with reflection on scripture and what has been handed down some doctrines become clearer.

So, you seem to agree with The Handbook to the Catholic Faith on this. Do you agree with the question raised about it?

Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah

.

winsome · Oct 23, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
So, you seem to agree with The Handbook to the Catholic Faith on this. Do you agree with the question raised about it?

You seem to raise up straw men so that you can knock them down.

CaliforniaJosiah said:
This, IMHO, might suggest that the Catholic apologetic that it is Apostolic, was ALWAYS taught by the Church, is biblical and firmly rooted in the Catholic Denomination's own "Fathers" is perhaps not even supported by the Catholic Church? At least not for this particular new, unique dogma of the CC.

What Catholic apologetic claims that it was Apostolic?

What Catholic apologetic claims that it was ALWAYS taught by the Church?

What Catholic apologetic claims that it is firmly rooted in the Fathers?

Photini · Oct 23, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah · Oct 23, 2008

winsome said:
What Catholic apologetic claims that it was Apostolic?

What Catholic apologetic claims that it was ALWAYS taught by the Church?

What Catholic apologetic claims that it is firmly rooted in the Fathers?

I was taught in the RCC and it has been posted here at CF many times that all the official teachings of the RCC (most especially, dogmas) are Apostolic in that the 13 Apostles taught it, has always been taught (there are no new teachings in the CC - all have always been taught), and that it is the CC's "Fathers" that reveal the Deposit of Faith.

But the Handbook seems to deny this - at least for this particular dogma.

.

winsome · Oct 24, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
I was taught in the RCC and it has been posted here at CF many times that all the official teachings of the RCC (most especially, dogmas) are Apostolic in that the 13 Apostles taught it, has always been taught (there are no new teachings in the CC - all have always been taught), and that it is the CC's "Fathers" that reveal the Deposit of Faith.

But the Handbook seems to deny this - at least for this particular dogma.

.

So no citations of Catholic apologetics that it was Apostolic, just a general claim that it was.

Regarding what has always been taught by the Church I think you have to be careful with words here. What is taught by the Church is what the Magisterium has clearly and formally defined. This would normally be in a formal Papal document (such as an encyclical) or a General council. I’m not an expert on Mariology or Church history so I don’t know what formal pronouncements there have been on the Immaculate Conception prior to the pronouncement by Pius IX in 1854, possibly none. In which case this would be the first time it has been officially taught by the Church. That does not mean that it has not been taught by many individuals in the Church from early times, or that it has not been believed by the faithful from early times. Many doctrines & dogmas take a long time before they are formally defined and become official teaching, and generally, in the early years at least, these formal pronouncements were made in response to heresies when the Church thought it necessary to clarify and define some doctrine.

We can see from the quotations I gave that many early Fathers believed in Mary’s purity and sinlessness. Here are some more quotations from the New Advent web site:

The absolute purity of Mary

Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.

The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
Maximus of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (On Nature and Grace 36).
Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

I don’t know the dates on these, but Origen was late 2nd, early 3rd century. So we can see that many early Fathers believed in Mary’s immaculate conception even if they didn’t use that terminology. But that doesn’t mean it was taught by the Church.

As the New Advent site also says:
“No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.” But that does not mean there is no support from scripture.

That's my understanding anyway.

winsome

Immaculate Conception of Mary

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

English, not British

Newbie

English, not British

Regular Member

MamaZ

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

Regular Member

MamaZ

Guest

Regular Member

MamaZ

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

English, not British

Gone.

Well-Known Member

English, not British

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency