Immaculate conception of Mary?

[Tallguy88]

MOD HAT ON

Thread closed for review.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[God's Child]

Mod Hat On​

This thread is being reopened and has undergone a mini clean up due to flaming. Please keep in mind the rules and remember not to flame.​

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Denys]

I came and the topic was closed. Now it's open again. I have not gone through every page, so if I repeat what has gone before, I apologise ...

Mary never perceived herself as 'sinless', although we may assume that another doctrine comes from her. Who else could know the events of the Annunciation, other than Mary herself?

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds that the Theotokos was free from the stain of Original Sin from the moment of her conception in the womb of her mother.

The doctrine states that "... the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin ..."

The Immaculate Conception represents Christ's saving grace operating in Mary in anticipation of His redemption of man and in God's foreknowledge of Mary's fiat in accepting the destiny of her vocation.

Scripture never states this, and the Fathers were cautious, and not universal on this or even on the perfection of the Immaculata.

Origen and St Basil both saw the sword (of which Simeon speaks), as a doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Basil: Epistle 260). St. Chrysostom goes further, accusing her of ambition.

But in the general teachings of the Fathers, two points emerge: the implicit belief in her absolute purity, and her position as the second Eve.

Mary as the second Eve is spoken of by Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem and others.

Belief in the purity of the Immaculata is so broad across the Patristic texts it would get tedious to list them. And from them it can be deduced that a belief in Mary's immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent – especially among the Fathers of the Greek Church, however the Greek Fathers never formally nor explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception, perhaps wisely leaving that as a Mystery to be contemplated...

 

[bbbbbbb]

I came and the topic was closed. Now it's open again. I have not gone through every page, so if I repeat what has gone before, I apologise ...

Mary never perceived herself as 'sinless', although we may assume that another doctrine comes from her. Who else could know the events of the Annunciation, other than Mary herself?

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds that the Theotokos was free from the stain of Original Sin from the moment of her conception in the womb of her mother.

The doctrine states that "... the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin ..."

The Immaculate Conception represents Christ's saving grace operating in Mary in anticipation of His redemption of man and in God's foreknowledge of Mary's fiat in accepting the destiny of her vocation.

Scripture never states this, and the Fathers were cautious, and not universal on this or even on the perfection of the Immaculata.

Origen and St Basil both saw the sword (of which Simeon speaks), as a doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Basil: Epistle 260). St. Chrysostom goes further, accusing her of ambition.

But in the general teachings of the Fathers, two points emerge: the implicit belief in her absolute purity, and her position as the second Eve.

Mary as the second Eve is spoken of by Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem and others.

Belief in the purity of the Immaculata is so broad across the Patristic texts it would get tedious to list them. And from them it can be deduced that a belief in Mary's immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent – especially among the Fathers of the Greek Church, however the Greek Fathers never formally nor explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception, perhaps wisely leaving that as a Mystery to be contemplated...

Thank you for the balanced post. You have given a fair history and I think you can understand why many Christians hold this belief at the level of a pious belief and not a dogma which will determine the eternal state of one's soul.

 

[Denys]

Thank you for the balanced post. You have given a fair history and I think you can understand why many Christians hold this belief at the level of a pious belief and not a dogma which will determine the eternal state of one's soul.

My pleasure. Not sure that dogmas determine the eternal state of one's soul, however. I really don't think the Judgement consists of an examination on the dogmas of the church.

Frankly, I think if you press most people on what they believe, you'll find error.

Then again, when Christ spoke of the widow at the temple (Mark 12) or the publican (Luke 18), I reckon both of them would have failed their 'Judaism 101' exam, but their place in heaven was assured. And the robber crucified (Luke 23) ...

 

[Albion]

My pleasure. Not sure that dogmas determine the eternal state of one's soul, however. I really don't think the Judgement consists of an examination on the dogmas of the church.

I'd agree with that perspective, but bbbbbbb is correct in what he wrote, because the Roman Catholic Church has made it a matter of one's eternal destiny.

By raising a pious opinion to the level of a dogma, as the church has done in this case, it has taken the position that any Catholic who disbelieves the dogma is guilty of a mortal sin, which would liable him to being condemned to hell should he die before repenting.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

While I don't think this very new and unique dogma of the singular, individual RC Denomination can be confirmed OR denied by Scripture (or even earliest Tradition), I nonetheless view it as problematic. Scripture itself says "for ALL have sinned....." SCRIPTURE can make an exception to that (and it does - just one - Jesus) but no other may. Just cuz my girlfriend thinks that I have no sin does not therefore mean that Scripture also also makes THAT exception *.


Thank you.


pax


- Josiah



* sadly, she doesn't think that.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

By raising a pious opinion to the level of a dogma, as the church has done in this case, it has taken the position that any Catholic who disbelieves the dogma is guilty of a mortal sin, which would liable him to being condemned to hell should he die before repenting.

EXACTLY!!!! Making THIS a "line in the sand," a teaching of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of fact possible, a point on which justification hinges. Now, it's true, Catholicism is careful to NOT say that THIS per se damns, but when I pressed a Catholic teacher on that point, he said: "Josiah, just remember this: denying a dogma makes one a heretic - and there are no heretics in heaven." Kind of answered the question.


I agree with you....... AS PIOUS OPINION, I have no great problems with this. I don't happen to agree with it but I can "live with" it, I don't regard it as heretical. Or even important. But the RCC changed all that (was that in 1904 or 1950 - can't remember which year). As my Greek Orthodox friend so often comments, "The Roman Church just keeps moving the goal posts."




Sorry.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[bbbbbbb]

EXACTLY!!!! Making THIS a "line in the sand," a teaching of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of fact possible, a point on which justification hinges. Now, it's true, Catholicism is careful to NOT say that THIS per se damns, but when I pressed a Catholic teacher on that point, he said: "Josiah, just remember this: denying a dogma makes one a heretic - and there are no heretics in heaven." Kind of answered the question.

I agree with you....... AS PIOUS OPINION, I have no great problems with this. I don't happen to agree with it but I can "live with" it, I don't regard it as heretical. Or even important. But the RCC changed all that (was that in 1904 or 1950 - can't remember which year). As my Greek Orthodox friend so often comments, "The Roman Church just keeps moving the goal posts."

Sorry.

Pax

- Josiah.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about dogmas of itself -

88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

 

[Standing Up]

While I don't think this very new and unique dogma of the singular, individual RC Denomination can be confirmed OR denied by Scripture (or even earliest Tradition), I nonetheless view it as problematic. Scripture itself says "for ALL have sinned....." SCRIPTURE can make an exception to that (and it does - just one - Jesus) but no other may. Just cuz my girlfriend thinks that I have no sin does not therefore mean that Scripture also also makes THAT exception *.


Thank you.


pax


- Josiah



* sadly, she doesn't think that.





.

IIRC, RC had a tough time getting around this one as they wrote Ineffabilis Deus, especially since it was Aquinas who maintained as scripture said.

 

[justinangel]

Your assertion that "NO apostolic church father (or any until well after the great schism of 1054) ever mentioned such a thing" isn't exactly correct. In some of the earliest of church fathers (Justin Martyr and Irenaeus for example), they refer to Mary as the "new Eve". That's well before the dogma of the Trinity is defined or the canon of Scripture is even established, which is WAY early in the scheme of things. Did they extrapolate that to consider what that meant in terms of original sin? No, but then again, the church's understanding of original sin and how that affects our human nature doesn't getting really fleshed out until Augustine comes along in a couple of hundred years. But understanding Mary as the New Eve is rooted in the earliest of the church fathers and there are numerous parallels between the two that are present in Scripture. And that implies being created in the same state that Eve was created -- without sin.

As far as that making Mary a "goddess" of some type -- I have no clue how people conclude that being sinless somehow equates a person to God. Adam and Eve were created in that state and it was certainly God's intention they remain in it. The angels who didn't rebel are sinless creatures and have been since God created them. Being sinless doesn't imply that Mary is a goddess. It simply means that she is more human than the rest of us. Human as God designed us to be before the parasite of sin entered the human race.

Ephesians 4:7-8 "But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it is said, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men."

Why some find it hard to believe that Christ bestowed the greatest measure of grace on his mother, I do not understand.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

"ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3.

'and in this way all Israel will be saved.'
Romans 11, 26

The Greek word for "all" in Romans 3:23 is pantes (a derivative of pas) which allows for exceptions. What Paul is saying is that all human beings taken collectively are subject to original sin and consequently are inclined to sin. Catholics concur that Mary was subject to inherit this stain like the rest of us, but by a singular grace she was spared contracting it, and as a result she did not inherit a sinful nature and commit any personal sins. The difference between Jesus and Mary is that her Son wasn't subject to original sin like all descendants of Adam and Eve. The word "all" is to be understood in a collective sense rather than a distributive sense to each and every individual.

Mary was a sinner in need of 'God my Savior".

Mary was redeemed 'in the most perfect way' by being preserved free from original sin by the foreseen merits of her divine Son.

Someone says to Christ "Blessed be your mother" Jesus responds "ON the Contrary - blessed are those who hear my words and do them".

Rather Mary was more blessed for hearing the word of God and keeping it than for having borne Jesus. In the words of her kinswoman Elizabeth: "Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled".

Stephen "being full of grace" is someone else who was also a sinner.

Here is the English transliteration of the Greek text.

stephanos de playrais charitos kai dunamaos epoie terata kai saimaya megala en to lao.

Charitos is the noun used in Acts 6:8. It places charis (grace) in a genetive case. If we look at the verb epoie in this passage, we can place the noun within a time reference. The verb tense is imperfect past progressive, so it indicates that the action - performing great signs and wonders - is completed in the past and left there. So charitos simply indicates that Stephen was full of or filled with wisdom and fortitude (actual helping graces) while he was debating with the religious elders in the synagogue and performing great signs and wonders. Whether Stephen remained wise and strong after this event is unimportant. The point is that Luke isn't concerned with the time before and after the event during which Stephen was filled with a sufficient supply of actual helping grace. But that is not so with regard to Mary.

In Luke 11:28, the expression kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle and singular female vocative. A participle is a verb that is used to describe a subject. The perfect tense describes an action in the present with a completed result. And since this term is used as a title, the evangelist doesn't intend to describe Mary's state within the time reference of the present moment. He presents the angel as saying, "Hail, you who have been "completely, perfectly, and permanently endowed with grace." Someone completely endowed with grace is obviously full of grace despite the verbal difference. Mary's endowment of grace to the extreme capacity is a completed past action with a lasting effect into the future. And Luke is concerned with this fact which is obvious by his use of grammar. He is acknowledging an important and fundamental belief about Mary in the nascent church of his time, which he probably learned from his companion Paul.

Stephen was "full of" or "filled with" grace and "power" or "fortitude" at the time he was disputing with the chief priests in the synagogue and managed to convert some of them. He was bestowed with grace that was "plentiful" enough to grant him the wisdom and strength to bear the adversity he would have to face during the time of his mission. A cabinet can be full of medicine or "abundant" with medicine making it "well-supplied" for the time of need. And although the cabinet is full of the required medicine for a particular ailment, it doesn't mean that in order to be full the cabinet must contain all the medicines that have ever been produced even for more serious ailments.

When the angel Gabriel addressed Mary with the title kecharitomene – the one having been completely, perfectly, and permanently endowed with grace - he wasn't simply describing her at a given instance in time as Stephen is described to be in the Book of Acts. And by grace the angel did not mean any of the actual graces such as wisdom and fortitude, which help to sanctify the soul. The grace the angel had in mind was that of unlimited sanctification itself. The Greek singular female vocative can be paraphrased or translated into the Latin to mean "full of grace", for Mary had been endowed with a fullness of sanctifying grace to the extreme capacity, having been completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowed with grace in view of her maternal vocation, which required that she be preserved free from all the stains of original sin: concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh, and the pride of life. To conceive and bear the holy Child of God as a mother worthy of him, the spiritual gifts of wisdom and fortitude, however plentiful and well-supplied in her soul, wouldn't be enough to meet her divine call. Mary had to be perpetually holy in every virtuous aspect - from the moment she was conceived to the time of her dormition - in order to be the most worthy mother of the divine Son. Her sanctified soul proclaimed the glory of God.

PAX

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds that the Theotokos was free from the stain of Original Sin from the moment of her conception in the womb of her mother.


.

I agree (although I think it's DOGMA now, not just doctrine). So...


1. Please list all the Scriptures that confirm Mary - specifically - was "free from the stain of ORIGINAL SIN from the moment of her conception in the womb of her mother."


2. Please quote any or all of the 12-14 Apostles stating such.


3. Please quote any from the First Century specifically stating such.


If you have nothing confirming this in the words of Scripture, the Apostles or anyone from the Apostolic Age, do you at least have something from one of the 7 Ecumenical Councils stating she was CONCEIVED without the STAIN of ORIGINAL SIN? The Dogma.

If you have NOTHING from Scripture, from the Apostles, from the Apostolic Age, from the Ecumenical Councils specifically stating what is the dogma, do you at least have a consensus of all "fathers" in the early church (before 311 AD)?

And you list for us all the denominations, churches, sects or religions OTHER than the singular, individual Catholic Church that has this specific Dogma as you stated or is it entirely unique to that singular, individual, exclusive denomination - just yours?


Thank you.






.

 

[Albion]

[Mary was redeemed 'in the most perfect way' by being preserved free from original sin by the foreseen merits of her divine Son.

There's no reason for thinking so, other that is seems a nice idea. That's nothing on which to make a dogma binding upon all church members.

In Luke 11:28, the expression kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle and singular female vocative. A participle is a verb that is used to describe a subject. The perfect tense describes an action in the present with a completed result. And since this term is used as a title, the evangelist doesn't intend to describe Mary's state within the time reference of the present moment. He presents the angel as saying, "Hail, you who have been "completely, perfectly, and permanently endowed with grace." Someone completely endowed with grace is obviously full of grace despite the verbal difference.

Two problems with that explanation, however.

1. You have no reason to conclude that the "completed in the past" aspect means at the time of her conception. Theologians and Bible scholars explain that the probable meaning is that God cleansed her in preparation for the angel's proclamation. The Immaculate Conception idea is pure speculation.

2. The "full of grace" aspect is being seen by you as meaning "nothing there but goodness," yet translators (Bible scholars and linguists, again) have rendered it as "found favor with God." Even Roman Catholic scholars agree to this. That changes the meaning entirely.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Noah found grace in the sight of the Lord, as well, but I am unaware of anyone who considers him to have been immaculately conceived.

 

[justinangel]

There's no reason for thinking so, other that is seems a nice idea.

SUPREME REASON FOR THE PRIVILEGE: THE DIVINE MATERNITY

'And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son -- the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart -- and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds.'
Ineffabilis Deus, Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius lX

That's nothing on which to make a dogma binding upon all church members.

To judge otherwise one "has suffered shipwreck in the faith".

"To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son -- the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart -- and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary."

Mary's freedom from the contagion of sin derives from the fact that she is the vessel through which the "the Word was made flesh". It was through her that Christ took his flesh and assumed our human nature. Since Christ is God, it was fitting that he took his humanity from a woman who had a sinless nature. Not that our Lord would have contracted the stain of original sin if he hadn't such a mother who was singularly graced through the Holy Spirit. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, therefore, is more a statement of the dignity of God's only-begotten Son than about the dignity of Mary. After all, Mary was not sinless by nature, but rather by divine grace. And because of the Father's perfect love of the Son, He willed that she whom he chose to be his mother should be perfect in holiness just as His Son would be perfect in his holy humanity. Jesus was holy by his substantial grace of union with the Father, Mary by His intervening grace. I find it hard to believe that the Father, who perfectly loves the Son, would will an imperfect mother for him.

Two problems with that explanation, however.

1. You have no reason to conclude that the "completed in the past" aspect means at the time of her conception. Theologians and Bible scholars explain that the probable meaning is that God cleansed her in preparation for the angel's proclamation. The Immaculate Conception idea is pure speculation.

First of all, theologians and bible scholars don't have either the authority or the charism to make infallible statements on matters of faith and morals revealed by God to His Church.

Second, God chose Mary from eternity before she was ever born. She was more than a divine idea the moment she was actually created to be our Lord's mother when God fashioned her soul at the first instant of her conception. God knew that Mary would say Yes to His will before the angel Gabriel appeared to her at the moment He first created her to be the new Ark of the Covenant. God made her holy right from the start, because in the Divine mind Mary has always been the perfect mother of Christ.

2. The "full of grace" aspect is being seen by you as meaning "nothing there but goodness," yet translators (Bible scholars and linguists, again) have rendered it as "found favor with God." Even Roman Catholic scholars agree to this. That changes the meaning entirely.

Not necessarily. True, the words grace and favour are distinct, but in Scripture they have related meanings. Grace is a free gift given to us by God - it is something given. Favour means something we do for someone else. The angel Gabriel does not tell Mary that God has done her a favour, but rather His grace has caused her to find favour with Him. The expression kecharitomene is a form of the verb charitoo. We get our word charisma from it. The noun charis usually means grace in Scripture. Charitoo thus has something to do with grace as we understand it: as the means to make us find favour with God. This is what Catholic scholars and linguists mean by using the expression "O favoured one" and " O highly favoured". In Luke 1:30, the angel says to Mary: "Fear not Mary, for you have found favour with God." In 1 John 4:18 we have: 'There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears has not been made perfect in love.' Mary had no cause to fear the divine apparition because of her perfect love of God which placed her in His favour by His grace.

PAX

 

[Albion]

First of all, theologians and bible scholars don't have either the authority or the charism to make infallible statements on matters of faith and morals revealed by God to His Church.

So, your point is that your church has the power, the authorization, to make dogma, quite independent of whether or not it's dogmatizing a fable.

And also that this (the reality of the story or lack or it) doesn't really matter, since it "builds character" or develops a spirit of devotionalism in the membership, or something like that.

Would you say this is a fair summary of what you were trying to say in that post?

 

[justinangel]

Noah found grace in the sight of the Lord, as well, but I am unaware of anyone who considers him to have been immaculately conceived.

We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us.
Romans 12, 6

But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
Ephesians 4, 7

What greater gift can there be than the Divine Maternity?

PAX

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Justinangel,

If I may..... this thread is not about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It's about the new, UNIQUE dogma of one denomination (the RCC) that Mary was specifically CONCEIVED within the womb of her mother WITHOUT the "stain" of ORIGINAL SIN. As a matter of dogmatic fact of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of fact possible impacting the salvation of souls. THAT's the issue before us. Each part of that.


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[justinangel]

So, your point is that your church has the power, the authorization, to make dogma, quite independent of whether or not it's dogmatizing a fable.

And also that this (the reality of the story or lack or it) doesn't really matter, since it "builds character" or develops a spirit of devotionalism in the membership, or something like that.

Would you say this is a fair summary of what you were trying to say in that post?

Obviously you and I have different conceptions about what the Church is. You won't find theologians, scholars, and linguists deciding what is to be believed in the nascent and early Church.

Dogma makes clear what we should believe as it has been revealed by God through His Church. Faith is accepting what is divinely fitting and right. It is understanding and appreciating what should be according to God's goodness and holiness. You could never be sure what to believe from what you personally judge and determine apart from a central teaching authority instituted by Christ himself on Peter and the Apostles to help nurture our faith and a better grasp of the fullness of the divine mysteries.

PAX