Immaculate conception of Mary?

[barryatlake]

bbbbbbb, we all one day will be rendered immaculate (sinless), but Mary, as the prototypical Christian, received this grace early. God granted it to make her a fitting mother for his Son.

Before the terms "original sin" and "immaculate conception" were even coined, early passages imply the doctrines. Many works mention that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain. Pain in childbearing is part of the penalty of original sin (Gen. 3:16). Thus, Mary could not have been under that penalty. By God’s grace, she was immaculate in anticipation of her Son’s redeeming death on the cross. The Church therefore describes Mary as "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (CCC 508).

 

[Alfred Persson]

bbbbbbb, we all one day will be rendered immaculate (sinless), but Mary, as the prototypical Christian, received this grace early. God granted it to make her a fitting mother for his Son.
...
snip!

Mary wasn't born with a resurrection "body that is spiritual" that is like Christ's resurrection body (1 Joh 3:2):

44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. (1Co 15:44-46 NKJ)

Your analogy is not analogous, the incompatible properties between Mary's physical body, and the resurrection body that only comes after the natural, are too many to list, without putting everyone to sleep.

 

[bbbbbbb]

bbbbbbb, we all one day will be rendered immaculate (sinless), but Mary, as the prototypical Christian, received this grace early. God granted it to make her a fitting mother for his Son.

Before the terms "original sin" and "immaculate conception" were even coined, early passages imply the doctrines. Many works mention that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain. Pain in childbearing is part of the penalty of original sin (Gen. 3:16). Thus, Mary could not have been under that penalty. By God’s grace, she was immaculate in anticipation of her Son’s redeeming death on the cross. The Church therefore describes Mary as "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (CCC 508).

And you know this how? Not by the Bible, which is utterly silent regarding these things, but by the various ponderings of men born centuries after the event who had to work up a theology to fit their ideas as to how Mary could be honored and worshipped rightly.

 

[Albion]

And you know this how? Not by the Bible, which is utterly silent regarding these things

He did answer that question.

He said "many works mention...." Who could ask for more than that?

 

[barryatlake]

I know this because of who Jesus is. Jesus was the most perfect Son that His Blessed Mother could ever have. In my neighborhood growing up, the easiest way to start a fight was to insult somebody's mother, we all agreed that if we had the power of Jesus that our mothers would all be in heaven. Jesus loved His Blessed Mother more than any of us lowly earthly creatures could fathom.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I know this because of who Jesus is. Jesus was the most perfect Son that His Blessed Mother could ever have. In my neighborhood growing up, the easiest way to start a fight was to insult somebody's mother, we all agreed that if we had the power of Jesus that our mothers would all be in heaven. Jesus loved His Blessed Mother more than any of us lowly earthly creatures could fathom.

Matthew 12:46-50

46 While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with him. 47 [Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you.”] 48 But he said in reply to the one who told him, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

 

[barryatlake]

bbbbbbb, See Mk.3: 31-35-Matthew has omitted Mk.3:20-21, which is taken up in Mk.3,31 [ see the note on Mt.12:22-32 ],yet the point of the story is the same in both gospels: natural kinship with Jesus counts for nothing ; only one who does '' the will of his heavenly Father '' belongs to his true family. It takes nothing away for the perfect love that Jesus has for his mother the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[Albion]

Matthew 12:46-50

46 While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with him. 47 [Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you.”] 48 But he said in reply to the one who told him, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” 49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

That's right. The idea that Jesus doted on his mother or held her out as the most important person in his life, etc. etc. is a fiction developed over time. The Scriptures clearly indicate the opposite. In fact, it's almost stunning how little Mary comes in for praise, prominence, or even a mention from Jesus. I offer no explanation for this, but it's what Scripture records.

 

[mmksparbud]

He did answer that question.

He said "many works mention...." Who could ask for more than that?

What exactly are the works and what exactly do they say??--"Many works mention" says absolutely nothing.

 

[barryatlake]

mm, you wrote: " What exactly are the works and what exactly do they say??--"Many works mention" says absolutely nothing. "

There yer go, misinterpreting works, why are you Protestants afraid of '' work" ? You really do not understand the Catholic teaching 'on works". In the above works apply to early Christian writings from the early Christian community. In other words, for an example the " Proteyangelium of James " claim apostolic authorship along with information on the Blessed Virgin, but ,of course it is not in our bibles, although it was accepted by the early Christian community who walked and talked with Jesus, His mother and apostles/successors. That is why we see from John 20: 30 being that much of the information about Jesus and Mary was left out of the Bible, being that it wasn't necessary to waste limited writing material and space in bible. Much was kept out because the community took for granted much of what we do not read in our bibles. the Christian Community decided to write it all down when realizing Jesus was not coming back in their lifetime and most writings were written while Mary was still living, no need to mention Mary when they still could talk to her while living amongst them.
__________________

 

[mmksparbud]

mm, you wrote: " What exactly are the works and what exactly do they say??--"Many works mention" says absolutely nothing. "

There yer go, misinterpreting works, why are you Protestants afraid of '' work" ? You really do not understand the Catholic teaching 'on works". In the above works apply to early Christian writings from the early Christian community. In other words, for an example the " Proteyangelium of James " claim apostolic authorship along with information on the Blessed Virgin, but ,of course it is not in our bibles, although it was accepted by the early Christian community who walked and talked with Jesus, His mother and apostles/successors. That is why we see from John 20: 30 being that much of the information about Jesus and Mary was left out of the Bible, being that it wasn't necessary to waste limited writing material and space in bible. Much was kept out because the community took for granted much of what we do not read in our bibles. the Christian Community decided to write it all down when realizing Jesus was not coming back in their lifetime and most writings were written while Mary was still living, no need to mention Mary when they still could talk to her while living amongst them.
__________________

I don't know any Protestants afraid of "work"--So far you have mentioned one work--but not any quotes from it--is this it? You say it is not in our bibles, but you are deciding your theology based on it and not the bible so I just wondered what this book said that makes you base your views of Mary on it.
Anything that was of great importance to our salvation would be in the bible--that would hardly be wasting limited writing material. The apostles talked about many people still living in their time that did not seem to be all that important. But to think that someone as important as the mother of Jesus not being mentioned much seems odd. Their letters were instructions to the followers of Jesus, how to view God and His work for us, how and why we should have certain ideas to base our theology on. If Mary is to be considered very much different from other women in the manner of her birth, then even one entire sentence would have been sufficient, and no waste of materials in the slightest.

 

[Albion]

I don't know any Protestants afraid of "work"

That's right, and our friend is just as likely to go off on Protestants for being too legalistic as he is to vilify Protestants for allegedly "being afraid of work." It probably comes from simply not knowing what Protestants believe.

Or perhaps it's a difficulty with the English language. HE was the one who mentioned "works," meaning publications ("Many works mention that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain"). ...and yet he's now talking about "works" as though the discussion had been about "good works," i.e. works of charity.

 

[bbbbbbb]

mm, you wrote: " What exactly are the works and what exactly do they say??--"Many works mention" says absolutely nothing. "

There yer go, misinterpreting works, why are you Protestants afraid of '' work" ? You really do not understand the Catholic teaching 'on works". In the above works apply to early Christian writings from the early Christian community. In other words, for an example the " Proteyangelium of James " claim apostolic authorship along with information on the Blessed Virgin, but ,of course it is not in our bibles, although it was accepted by the early Christian community who walked and talked with Jesus, His mother and apostles/successors. That is why we see from John 20: 30 being that much of the information about Jesus and Mary was left out of the Bible, being that it wasn't necessary to waste limited writing material and space in bible. Much was kept out because the community took for granted much of what we do not read in our bibles. the Christian Community decided to write it all down when realizing Jesus was not coming back in their lifetime and most writings were written while Mary was still living, no need to mention Mary when they still could talk to her while living amongst them.
__________________

Using your line of argument, one could conclude that none of the other believers who were alive at the time should have been mentioned in the NT because they were well-known. However, this was hardly the case and the NT is filled with discussion regarding them. In fact, most of the mentions are in regard to much more insignificant events than the ascension into heaven by Mary. If Jesus' ascension to heave is reported as a very significant miracle, surely that of Mary ought to have received at least some mention, would you not agree?

 

[barryatlake]

bbbbbbb,it is also worth noting that nowhere in Scripture do angels venerate man, for they are higher than man as they are pure spirits. In the scene of the Annunciation, we see the only time where an angel actually venerates a human, that of the Holy Virgin. Gabriel does not even call her by her name, but rather addresses her by a title, Full of Grace.

 

[Albion]

bbbbbbb,it is also worth noting that nowhere in Scripture do angels venerate man, for they are higher than man as they are pure spirits. In the scene of the Annunciation, we see the only time where an angel actually venerates a human, that of the Holy Virgin. Gabriel does not even call her by her name, but rather addresses her by a title, Full of Grace.

Certainly. She was special. That's obvious. But that fact doesn't give anyone license to make up progressively more and more fabulous myths about her supposed supernatural qualities.

 

[bbbbbbb]

bbbbbbb,it is also worth noting that nowhere in Scripture do angels venerate man, for they are higher than man as they are pure spirits. In the scene of the Annunciation, we see the only time where an angel actually venerates a human, that of the Holy Virgin. Gabriel does not even call her by her name, but rather addresses her by a title, Full of Grace.

I find this rather puzzling. Although the Catholic translations of the verse omit her name, in all other translations Gabriel addresses her as Mary. What I find puzzling is that the common prayer known as the Hail Mary does address her as Mary, not by an attribute. Could it be that the Hail Mary prayer is in serious error in using a non-Catholic rendering of this verse?

 

[barryatlake]

mmksparbub, you wrote:
" If Mary is to be considered very much different from other women in the manner of her birth, then even one entire sentence would have been sufficient, and no waste of materials in the slightest."

The Bible no where mentions the Trinity or Incarnation;however,it is implicit and that is where many do not grasp it or comprehend scripture.

 

[Albion]

The Bible no where mentions the Trinity or Incarnation;however,it is implicit and that is where many do not grasp it or comprehend scripture.

There's no comparison, however. The Trinity is affirmed by the Bible; it just is to be found in several separate verses. With the Immaculate Conception, though, there is nothing in Scripture that affirms this doctrine.

There is only the opening some have found in what's written there for them to speculate on the reality of something further. If we did that with every legend and pious myth, accepting them on a "could be" or "why not?" or "It doesn't explicitly REJECT this theory, so..." basis, there would be almost no idea, however far-fetched, that couldn't be made into a dogma.

 

[barryatlake]

Allow me to show you a few other things that can not be explicitly explained

A) Matthew 2:23: the reference to ". . . He shall be called a Nazarene " cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was passed down "by the prophets." Thus, a prophecy, which is considered to be "God's Word" was passed down orally, rather than through Scripture.
B) Matthew 23:2-3: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses' seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down is taught.
And now two examples from the Apostle Paul:
C) In 1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock which "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13). But rabbinic tradition does.
D) 2 Timothy 3:8: "As Jannes and Jambres oppsed Moses . . . " These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exodus 7:8 ff.), or anywhere else in the Old Testament
Same applies to the perpetual Blessed Virgin Mary Mother of our Lord/God

 

[Albion]

Albion, disagreements about certain doctrines seems like a convenient ' warring ground' with you anti-catholics

Well, tell me what it's like to be an anti-Protestant.

but when it comes to the ultimate disagreement concerning the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura you readily accept it without the bible mentioning that Protestant doctrine anyplace.

It's not that convoluted a matter. Sola Scriptura doesn't invent any new doctrine, as the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption do. The term is simply shorthand for a more complicated Biblical teaching--like "Trinity" is.

Sure, you believe in the Trinity although the term doesn't appear in Scripture. The same holds true for believing that Scripture was divinely inspired and sufficient for God's purposes.

Scripture itself says that many times, so it's just a matter of whether a person believes it or not.