Immaculate conception of Mary?

[Standing Up]

And that is how long after the birth of Jesus??? Which should settle the question about how the "early fathers" and disciples all agreed about her sinlessness. In that 1st sentence they state the truth--there is no scriptural proof for their stand--it is tradition only and that tradition didn't get "settled" until 1476 and did not officially become dogma until 1854. I know this will not matter to those who wish to believe this teaching.

Not just that, but they rely on intentionally mistranslating scripture.

This, IC, is one dogma that contradicts Scripture.

 

[justinangel]

That's right. And we can prove it by reference to explicit testimony from Scripture. That kind of evidence is absent from the claim that Mary was conceived immaculately.

My point is that the evidence doesn't necessarily have to be explicit to be supportive.

In the absence of the Bible's witness, we could not prove that a God--and certainly not our God, the only true God--exists, even though nature suggests to us that there is a higher intelligence.

How can you prove that Scripture actually is the word of God? It takes a leap of faith to believe it really is. And people believed in God long before the Bible was ever written and compiled as an affirmation of traditional beliefs. Historically Christians believed in Mary's sinlessness long before the Church finally determined which books and epistles belonged to the canon of Scripture. The Church got that right just as it got Mary's immaculate conception right.

“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?”
Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]

"Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Luke 1, 42

PAX

 

[justinangel]

Not just that, but they rely on intentionally mistranslating scripture.

This sounds like a conspiracy theory.

This, IC, is one dogma that contradicts Scripture.

All have sinned, right?

PAX

 

[Albion]

This sounds like a conspiracy theory.

If so, there would be a detailed plan of attack. No, it's just an observation about how it's possible to twist scripture to make it fit a predetermined conclusion. Lots of people do it.

 

[Albion]

My point is that the evidence doesn't necessarily have to be explicit to be supportive.

Very well, but it has to have SOME degree of persuasiveness. I cannot, therefore, make scripture say what it clearly is not saying or string together a series of non-sequiturs and then proclaim something proven. If that were acceptable, we could prove just about anything. We can easily prove--using one of those methods--that God's chosen people are the Americans instead of the Jews or that Jesus wants us to buy a Honda.

That's the kind of reasoning we're resisting in this thread.

 

[Standing Up]

All have sinned, right?

PAX

You're saying your IC dogma is sin, ie "misses the mark" aka wrong? You're okay with that? Your excuse is all have sinned?

 

[barryatlake]

Could somebody direct me to the location of Mary's burial plot, surely Christians have maintained the burial spot of the only mother of our Lord, especially with all those other children that Mary gave birth to. [ as per bible ] Oh, wait a minute, I almost forgot not one of her children was there at the foot of the Cross so why would I think that they would care about the Mother of Man's Savior. No wonder Jesus gave his mother to His apostle John, why of course Jesus was telling us that His Mother is everybody's Mother. Still without any doubt there would be a long line of ancestors that would give perpetual care for Mary's burial site being that the Blessed Mother was the only Mother of the Savior of Mankind. Heck, never mine, what's wrong with me, nowhere in the bible does it mention the burial site of the Mother of Our Lord and Savior Jesus.

 

[mmksparbud]

Could somebody direct me to the location of Mary's burial plot, surely Christians have maintained the burial spot of the only mother of our Lord, especially with all those other children that Mary gave birth to. [ as per bible ] Oh, wait a minute, I almost forgot not one of her children was there at the foot of the Cross so why would I think that they would care about the Mother of Man's Savior. No wonder Jesus gave his mother to His apostle John, why of course Jesus was telling us that His Mother is everybody's Mother. Still without any doubt there would be a long line of ancestors that would give perpetual care for Mary's burial site being that the Blessed Mother was the only Mother of the Savior of Mankind. Heck, never mine, what's wrong with me, nowhere in the bible does it mention the burial site of the Mother of Our Lord and Savior Jesus.

Enoch, he walked with God and God translated him. Elijah also never saw death. Now, here is a totally sinless person, Mary, unlike them, the only being on earth to have ever been born without sin and lived without sin and certainly far more holy and closer to God than either one if them and the queen of heaven to boot, and there is not one tiny little indication that she was translated. How come? If she died, why did she see death and not them? If they were worthy, why not her? I've asked before and got no answer--Someone of this magnitude is not said to be translated--somebody forget to mention it??

 

[bbbbbbb]

Could somebody direct me to the location of Mary's burial plot, surely Christians have maintained the burial spot of the only mother of our Lord, especially with all those other children that Mary gave birth to. [ as per bible ] Oh, wait a minute, I almost forgot not one of her children was there at the foot of the Cross so why would I think that they would care about the Mother of Man's Savior. No wonder Jesus gave his mother to His apostle John, why of course Jesus was telling us that His Mother is everybody's Mother. Still without any doubt there would be a long line of ancestors that would give perpetual care for Mary's burial site being that the Blessed Mother was the only Mother of the Savior of Mankind. Heck, never mine, what's wrong with me, nowhere in the bible does it mention the burial site of the Mother of Our Lord and Savior Jesus.

The early Christians, being heavily persecuted, did not seem to be terribly interested in venerating the physical bodies of anyone. Thus, you will be hard pressed to find any burial plots for John the Baptist, the Apostles (I know about the idea behind St. Peter's Basilica), or any New Testament individual.

However, we do have the miraculous angelic transfer of Mary and Joseph's house in Nazareth to Loreto, Italy. However, that did not allegedly happen until 1291. Holy House of Loreto - Loreto, Italy

How it survived completely intact for thirteen centuries is really quite amazing to me and then to have angels air lift it to Loreto is icing on the cake.

 

[justinangel]

If so, there would be a detailed plan of attack. No, it's just an observation about how it's possible to twist scripture to make it fit a predetermined conclusion. Lots of people do it.

Lots of people do it when they apply their private interpretations to it. For example, 'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' or 'there is not one who is righteous'. Scripture serves to confirm what is declared by the Holy Spirit to the Church, that same Sprit who guides the Church 'in all truth' (cf. Jn 16:12-13). Scripture comes from Tradition (cf. Lk 1:1-4). And in the meantime doctrines develop over time, not having originated from perusing a book. When the Magisterium presents proofs from Scripture and Tradition to declare and define a doctrine as dogma, it acts in a public capacity by divine authority with the guaranty of the Holy Spirit. Scripture is and must be interpreted in light of sacred Tradition. Only fallible individuals are capable of misinterpreting the written word of God in accord with their preconceived notions that are at odds with Tradition and historical Christianity.

The Catholic Church did not come up with the idea of the Immaculate Conception by initially opening the Bible and turning to Genesis 3:15 or Luke 1:28. Rather the idea germinated from traditional doctrines that had been passed on through the medium of sacred Tradition - the unwritten word of God - which originated from the preaching of the apostles and the apostolic oral tradition. In Protestantism doctrines have originated and evolved and deviated inversely. The starting point is with opening a book in reaction to preceding teachings of the Catholic Church or another Protestant denomination. It was by turning to Paul's Letter to the Romans that Luther formulated the idea of justification by faith alone. Until then no such belief had traditionally existed in Christendom, no Church Father bore any witness to such a belief, and no Ecumenical Council ratified it; since there was nothing to ratify as a universal teaching of the Church. Many Church Fathers, of both East and West, give testimony to the Church's belief in Mary's sinlessness. This was a belief and teaching that was never condemned as heretical by any general council, since this doctrine belonged to the deposit of Faith: sacred Scripture and Tradition. Only by this time there remained the question of how it was Mary had been sinless and at what point in her earthly existence she was preserved free from all stain of sin.

It really makes no sense that God would have intervened and transformed her constitution at some point after she was first conceived either in the womb or after she was born, but before the angel appeared to her. Certainly it takes time to discern and reflect on the divine mysteries, including those which concern the Trinitarian and Christological teachings of the Church handed down in rudimentary form from the Apostles.

PAX

 

[Standing Up]

Lots of people do it when they apply their private interpretations to it. For example, 'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' or 'there is not one who is righteous'. Scripture serves to confirm what is declared by the Holy Spirit to the Church, that same Sprit who guides the Church 'in all truth' (cf. Jn 16:12-13). Scripture comes from Tradition (cf. Lk 1:1-4). And in the meantime doctrines develop over time, not having originated from perusing a book. When the Magisterium presents proofs from Scripture and Tradition to declare and define a doctrine as dogma, it acts in a public capacity by divine authority with the guaranty of the Holy Spirit. Scripture is and must be interpreted in light of sacred Tradition. Only fallible individuals are capable of misinterpreting the written word of God in accord with their preconceived notions that are at odds with Tradition and historical Christianity.

The Catholic Church did not come up with the idea of the Immaculate Conception by initially opening the Bible and turning to Genesis 3:15 or Luke 1:28. Rather the idea germinated from traditional doctrines that had been passed on through the medium of sacred Tradition - the unwritten word of God - which originated from the preaching of the apostles and the apostolic oral tradition. In Protestantism doctrines have originated and evolved and deviated inversely. The starting point is with opening a book in reaction to preceding teachings of the Catholic Church or another Protestant denomination. It was by turning to Paul's Letter to the Romans that Luther formulated the idea of justification by faith alone. Until then no such belief had traditionally existed in Christendom, no Church Father bore any witness to such a belief, and no Ecumenical Council ratified it; since there was nothing to ratify as a universal teaching of the Church. Many Church Fathers, of both East and West, give testimony to the Church's belief in Mary's sinlessness. This was a belief and teaching that was never condemned as heretical by any general council, since this doctrine belonged to the deposit of Faith: sacred Scripture and Tradition. Only by this time there remained the question of how it was Mary had been sinless and at what point in her earthly existence she was preserved free from all stain of sin.

It really makes no sense that God would have intervened and transformed her constitution at some point after she was first conceived either in the womb or after she was born, but before the angel appeared to her. Certainly it takes time to discern and reflect on the divine mysteries, including those which concern the Trinitarian and Christological teachings of the Church handed down in rudimentary form from the Apostles.

PAX

Correct. It changed the words of scripture (Gen. 3:15) to align to her Tradition, as even NewAdvent.org agrees.

Still don't understand why folks think that is okay

 

[justinangel]

Very well, but it has to have SOME degree of persuasiveness. I cannot, therefore, make scripture say what it clearly is not saying....

And I suppose you know what Scripture is clearly saying as opposed to what the Church has traditionally taught since the first millennium.

... or string together a series of non-sequiturs and then proclaim something proven. If that were acceptable, we could prove just about anything. We can easily prove--using one of those methods--that God's chosen people are the Americans instead of the Jews or that Jesus wants us to buy a Honda.

I believe you must first prove it as a fact that Mary was sinful before you reject the Catholic premises which reasonably support the dogma of the IC. Certainly it's immeasurably more credible that Mary was preserved free from all stain of sin by the grace of God than Jesus rode a Honda.

That's the kind of reasoning we're resisting in this thread.

Try reasoning why Mary should have to be sinful rather than quibbling. I debate with myself whether I should even bother to reply to your posts.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

Correct. It changed the words of scripture (Gen. 3:15) to align to her Tradition, as even NewAdvent.org agrees.

Still don't understand why folks think that is okay

Please quote New Advent. Taking ancient Jewish parallel poetry into account, the antagonist against the serpent must be the woman, and against its offspring the woman's child. The woman is at enmity with the serpent, and her seed against its seed. The Scribes and Pharisees whom Jesus contended with can be counted among the serpent's offspring. The woman crushes the serpent's head by her obedient act of faith and charity which results in the birth of her son, the new Adam. She undoes what Eve has wrought by her lack of faith and disobedience which leads to the fall of Adam. That's how the ECFs perceived Mary's vital role in the economy of salvation. The Jewish heroines Jael and Judith crush or sever the heads of Israel's enemy leaders, prefiguring Mary's mighty deed in collaboration with God. When God addresses the serpent, He has what it had done to Eve in mind. It's really not so hard to understand why Jerome chose the female pronoun, as some old Jewish manuscripts also do. In classical Jewish theology the woman represents Israel, Daughter Zion. Another interpretation has the seed doing the crushing in a collective sense, the righteous descendants of Eve, i.e., Abel or Noah, or Abraham, which would also include the Messiah.

PAX

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Could somebody direct me to the location of Mary's burial plot

Silly apologetic...

I have a great uncle (maybe great-great uncle) who was an officier in the submarine corps during WW 2. He and his ship suddenly disappeared. Neither the sub or any of its crew has ever been found. Thus, you cannot visit his grave. Now, according to you, this proves that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of fact possible impacting the eternal salvation of souls that he was Assumed body and soul into heaven at the microsecond of his death (or undeath).

Pretty silly, IMO. This whole Catholic apologetic. AMAZING how incredibly weak (well, less than that) Catholic apologetics too often is.



Thank you.


pax


- Josiah

 

[Albion]

And I suppose you know what Scripture is clearly saying as opposed to what the Church has traditionally taught since the first millennium.

I certainly do know enough to know that what you've bought into merely because your denomination says to believe it...is not what "has traditionally (been) taught since the first millennium."

I'd commend Bible study and Church history to anyone who is interested in sorting out the truth of such matters from the mythology.

I believe you must first prove it as a fact that Mary was sinful before you reject the Catholic premises which reasonably support the dogma of the IC.

All right. I'll cite Mary herself who acknowledged that she needed a Savior just like the rest of us.

What's more, this is enshrined in God's word which is reliably correct, unlike the various legends of the saints.

 

[barryatlake]

Josiah, with all due respect to your uncle, he is not in the same league as the Mother of Our lord/God Jesus. Tell me also did an angel of the Lord appeared to uncle and call him blessed? Silly apologetic you say , I'd say you owe an apology to Jesus instead of always slapping Him in the face with your continuous disrespect to His Blessed Mother.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, as to your misunderstanding of Catholicism and in this case Mary with Mary needing a Savior, the key point is that Mary required the costant gift of God's grace to remain sinless. Mary could not remain sinless without that grace. Thus God is Mary's Savior

God saved Mary - he just did it differently.

Try this analogy: I can save you from death AFTER you have fallen into a deep well by pulling you out. Or I can save you from death by preventing you from falling into the well in the first place. In either case, I have saved you from death.

Most of us get pulled out. Mary was protected from ever falling.

 

[mmksparbud]

Enoch, he walked with God and God translated him. Elijah also never saw death. Now, here is a totally sinless person, Mary, unlike them, the only being on earth to have ever been born without sin and lived without sin and certainly far more holy and closer to God than either one if them and the queen of heaven to boot, and there is not one tiny little indication that she was translated. How come? If she died, why did she see death and not them? If they were worthy, why not her? I've asked before and got no answer--Someone of this magnitude is not said to be translated--somebody forget to mention it??

Can somebody address this??

And again--nobody is disrespecting Mary. All we are saying is that she was a real live woman--fully 100% human woman born as the rest of the real life human women.
And one more thing---it is not the object, or the person, that makes anything Holy---it is the presence of God that makes anything Holy. Christ could stand in the middle of a sewer and it would instantly be cleansed and Holy. Mary did not need to be Holy before Christ was placed in her--it was Christ's presence that made her Holy while He was in her.

 

[Rhamiel]

Enoch, he walked with God and God translated him. Elijah also never saw death. Now, here is a totally sinless person, Mary, unlike them, the only being on earth to have ever been born without sin and lived without sin and certainly far more holy and closer to God than either one if them and the queen of heaven to boot, and there is not one tiny little indication that she was translated. How come? If she died, why did she see death and not them? If they were worthy, why not her? I've asked before and got no answer--Someone of this magnitude is not said to be translated--somebody forget to mention it??

well Saint John the Baptist was also an amazing prohet
but he was killed, he was not taken up to heaven like Enoch

I do not think it is just "worthy"
it is more like Gods plan

if Mary died or did not die before she was taken up into heaven is a matter of debate even among people who believe she was taken up into heaven
I think the Eastern Orthodox say she died before she was taken up
and Catholics do not really say one way or the other

 

[justinangel]

I certainly do know enough to know that what you've bought into merely because your denomination says to believe it...is not what "has traditionally (been) taught since the first millennium."

In the first millennium there was an 'implicit awareness' of what was universally accepted and held by the entire Church in the 15th century and defined as dogma in the 19th century. Not unlike with our Trinitarian and Christological dogmas, belief in the Immaculate Conception was attained through a progressive awareness of this divine revelation to the Church. These Church Fathers follow those of the 2nd and 3rd centuries whom I've already quoted above in this thread. You'll notice how more explicit belief in Mary's sinlessness is expressed as time passes.

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?
Ephraim the Syrian, Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.
Ambrose of Milan, Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor.
Gregory Nazianzen,Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.
Augustine, Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.
Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.
Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]

I'd commend Bible study and Church history to anyone who is interested in sorting out the truth of such matters from the mythology.

The fallacy of a dubious assumption: If we don't (rather can't) find it in the Bible, then it isn't there and obviously is a myth. We can never prove or determine anything as truly revealed by God to His Church by buying into our own assumptions. The ECFs themselves have taught that we can never reach a true theological conclusion by studying Scripture on our own apart from the appointed shepherds of the Church and divorced from sacred Tradition. The principle of sola Scriptura as a counter proposition that materialized in the 16th century among Catholic academicians who practically rebelled against the appointed teaching and governing authority. This principle itself is a dubious assumption, unheard of by the Church Fathers nor dealt with by any general council until Trent. The truth is that there are about 100 scriptural passages that refute what you propose to do.

All right. I'll cite Mary herself who acknowledged that she needed a Savior just like the rest of us.

Catholics don't deny this. As I said above, Mary was in need of a saviour because she was subject to inheriting the stain of original sin being a descendant of Adam and Eve. Not unlike us, Mary was redeemed, but her redemption was preservative, not curative like ours, in view of the foreseen merits of Christ. And being in need of our objective redemption, she too had to participate in acquiring all the graces we need to be saved by the merits of her divine Son. The idea of a preservative redemption is what helped settle the differences of opinion among the scholastic theologians in the Middle Ages. Some Church Fathers appear to have believed that Mary was sinless more than by being just personally sinless. Augustine seems to have taught only that Mary never committed any personal sins, while Ephraim, on the other hand, appears to have believed that she contracted no sinful nature and wasn't inclined to sin at all just like her Son, the unblemished lamb. Theodotus speaks of her as "free of all defect, untouched, and unsullied", Proclus as "formed without any stain". Original sin is a state of human nature, not an actual sin of which we ourselves are culpable of. Aquinas looked at original sin merely as something that had to be cured or removed. Mary had to be in the need of being cured for Christ's redemptive merits to be applied to her. It was Dun Scotus who introduced the idea of a preventive measure of treatment in western theology, which the whole Church eventually accepted.

What's more, this is enshrined in God's word which is reliably correct, unlike the various legends of the saints.

Not Albion's word?

PAX