Immaculate conception of Mary?

[justinangel]

Says you and the Roman Catholic Church.

The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church does not consist of only the Western Roman / Latin rite.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Even though you're quoting from the King James Version of the Bible which is well-known for the use of wording that is straight out of the seventeenth century.

Et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit: Ave gratia plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus.
Luke 1, 28 [Latin Vukgate of St. Jerome]

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
[KJV]

" 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' "(A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)

What makes you think I'm quoting from the KJV?

You have, at least, put your finger on the only possible argument for the immaculate conception--a misinterpretation of the words of the angel to Mary.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not rest on any single verse in Scripture. No Church dogma originates from proof-reading the Bible. Still there are many OT symbols pertaining to Mary that point to it. The Ark of the Covenant is just one symbol among many.

However, even if we take them to mean what you say, it doesn't follow that she ALWAYS was 'full of sinlessness," nor did the angel say any such thing to her, so it's still a legend without any Scriptural basis.

The female vocative kecharitomene ( literally “highly favoured one”) can be paraphrased as “enduringly endowed with grace” (cf. Blass and De Brunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament). It is because Mary was to be the mother of our Lord, that the perfect past participle does “show a completeness with a permanent result” and denotes “continuance of a completed action” (H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, pp. 108-109: Harvard U Press, 1968). Moreover, since the expression kecharitomene is in the vocative case, the angel is addressing Mary as the embodiment of all that this expression denotes. When he greets her, he doesn’t call Mary by her name, but by her spiritual state. Our names are something that we have had since the beginning, and normally they are something that we keep until the end of our lives.

The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on in full effect. The progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action.

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament). Blass and De Brunner have the morphological aspectual (not tense marked) stem of kecharitomene in mind: ke. This is the perfect stem of the root verb charitoo which may denote a perpetuation of a completed past action. The perfect stem is distinguished from the aorist stem which we have in Ephesians 1:6, for example: escharitosen: “He graced” or “has freely given grace”. In this active indicative form the aorist stem describes a completed action which has come to pass and is finished. It is temporal in aspect and a momentary result. The aorist stem does not signify a permanent state of grace. The perfect aspect, on the other hand, exclusively denotes a state which prevails after an event has taken place and which is caused by this event. Catholics believe this is the Immaculate Conception – the first instant when God fashioned and sanctified Mary’s soul in view of the foreseen merits of Christ on account of her election to the Divine Maternity. " Thus Kecharitomene means "to bestow grace, to show favor to someone...the divine favor for a special vocation...." (Fritz Rienecker/Cleon Rogers in their Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament).

Anyway, going back to Blass and Debrunner, for example, Galatians 2:20 should be translated “I am in a present state of having been crucified with Christ,” indicating that not only was I crucified with Christ in the past, but I am existing now in that present condition.

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Galatians 2, 20

‘I have been crucified with Christ’ (Χριστωι συνεσταυρωμαι — Christōi sunestaurōmai). One of Paul‘s greatest mystical sayings. Perfect passive indicative of συσταυροω — sustauroō with the associative instrumental case (Χριστωι — Christōi). [www.nt greek.org]

The Greek perfect tense has to do with the person’s present condition or state. Thus Luke is telling us that the grace Mary was endowed with in the past is the state of grace she continues to exist in at the time of the Annunciation. Theologically we may assume that Mary remained in this state of grace after the angel departed, since he left as soon as Mary consented to be the mother of the Lord – the Divine Maternity being the reason for this singular endowment of grace. In Luke 1:30 the angel says, “Fear not Mary, for you have found favour with God.” In other words, the angel is reiterating what he said when he first greeted Mary, that God has bestowed grace on her as a favour for a special vocation. This vocation is the Divine Maternity which actualized in real time at the precise moment when Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). The completed action of having been bestowed with grace may continue on the condition that Mary actually is the mother of the Lord.

In his Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854, Pope Pius lX cites the Divine Maternity as the “Supreme reason for the privilege” of the Immaculate Conception. We should keep in mind that when God predestined Mary to be the mother of Christ, He knew that she would pronounce her fiat that first instant He fashioned and sanctified her soul. She was the mother of our Lord the first instant God created her in the womb. The perfect tense itself does not function to indicate that this state of grace will necessarily continue to exist after the present time. Paul continues to be in the state of being crucified with Christ on the condition that Christ lives in him, and as long as he lives his life “by faith in the Son of God,” just as Mary continues to be in the state of sanctifying grace provided she is the mother of the Lord.

It is important for us to keep in mind that the word Kecharitomene is in the vocative case. The angel does not say: “Hail, Mary. You have been perfectly and completely endowed with grace.” Rather he directly addresses her by substituting her name for the word: ‘ full of grace.’ Kecharitomene is the name the angel gives Mary when he addresses her. So the state of grace Mary continues to exist in at the time of the Annunciation can be considered to be of an enduring and permanent quality. In Scripture the names God gives his servants (Abram-Abraham, Sarai-Sarah, Jacob-Israel, Simon-Peter, Saul-Paul) refer to their defining characteristics. The name Sarah (“exalted princess” in ancient Hebrew), for example, points to the status of being the Matriarch of the Covenant, who foreshadows the Davidic Queen Mother (Gebirah). Thus the name Kecharitomene points to something essential about Mary’s nature and special vocation. She isn’t simply full of grace, but is actually called full of grace; she embodies in her person what it means to be completely and perfectly endowed with grace. And the names God gives His servants are permanent. Grammatically and linguistically we must keep both the verb tense and the form of case in mind to fully understand what is being indicated here by the phrase Kecharitomene. The perfect tense is being used here in a way that never is for any other figure in the Scriptures.

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.”
St. Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 [A.D. 388]

Would you care to give us your exegesis of the text instead of just making unsupported statements like the IC "is still a legend without any scriptural basis"? All you're just saying is that you don't want to believe in it. And why you don't beats me? The dogma has less to do with Mary than it does with her Divine Son.

 

[Albion]

The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church does not consist of only the Western Roman / Latin rite.

Very true. It also consists of the Anglican Church, the Assyrian Church, the Greek Orthodox Church and others. However, I meant to say what I wrote there. If you and the Roman Catholic Church happen to have some theory, that in itself doesn't make it either right or wrong.

 

[justinangel]

Very true. It also consists of the Anglican Church, the Assyrian Church, the Greek Orthodox Church and others. However, I meant to say what I wrote there. If you and the Roman Catholic Church happen to have some theory, that in itself doesn't make it either right or wrong.

The Anglican Church was founded by King Henry Vlll and ratified by the British Parliament. Still there exists an Anglican rite within the Catholic Church consisting of members (clergy and laity) who converted from the Anglican and Episcopal churches. The bishops are in union with the Pope. The autonomous Greek churches that are not in union with the Pope are not part of the Catholic Church which was founded by Christ on Peter the rock. The Catholic Church is the "pillar and the foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), so the IC is not a theological theory. Individual theologians may theorize, but a dogma is not an individual theological opinion. You'll find the idea of the IC in the teachings of many Church Fathers through the centuries. Their writings are monuments of sacred Tradition.

 

[Albion]

The Anglican Church was founded by King Henry Vlll

...and I can reply that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by "Pope" Leo the Great over 400 years after Christ.

The Catholic Church is the "pillar and the foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15)

Not according to the Bible.

What you've written here is nothing but your denomination's self-serving interpretation of the verse.

 

[patricius79]

...and I can reply that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by "Pope" Leo the Great over 400 years after Christ.
.

How so?

 

[Albion]

You'll find the idea of the IC in the teachings of many Church Fathers through the centuries.

Unless the whole church believed it and from the beginning, it's not Tradition for doctrinal purposes.

 

[patricius79]

Ok, so again, you believe the NT canon, Trinity, Marian dogmas were all fully present and known in Paul's time.

I think the doctrines of the N.T. Canon, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Marian dogmas are not explicit in Scripture--the Bible never even refers to a New Testament Canon-- but they were present in an implicit, mysterious way in the oral Word of God (2 Timothy 2:2) passed on from Christ ad the Apostles. That is why we see already in the 100s, for example, the clear idea that Mary is the New Eve.

 

[patricius79]

Unless the whole church believed it and from the beginning, it's not Tradition for doctrinal purposes.

Take the N.T. Canon and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception--two doctrines of the historic Catholic Church founded by Christ--for example: in what sense did the whole church believe these traditions from the beginning?

 

[Standing Up]

I think the doctrines of the N.T. Canon, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Marian dogmas are not explicit in Scripture--the Bible never even refers to a New Testament Canon-- but they were present in an implicit, mysterious way in the oral Word of God (2 Timothy 2:2) passed on from Christ ad the Apostles. That is why we see already in the 100s, for example, the clear idea that Mary is the New Eve.

Can't argue with something you believe without proof. You believe the NT Scripture was canonized in Paul's time. He said abide the traditions.

 

[patricius79]

Can't argue with something you believe without proof. You believe the NT Scripture was canonized in Paul's time. He said abide the traditions.

The NT Scripture wasn't Canonized in Paul's time. It was only passed on implicitly within the mystery of the oral Tradition, through the establishment of the Magisterium (Papacy and Bishops in union with it)

I can't accept the Protestant oral traditions because they lack evidence and are contrary to faith.

Paul says to to hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

That's what Catholics do. That's why we accept the N.T. Canon, even though it isn't documented until long after Paul's time, and that's why we accept the doctrine of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Standing Up]

The NT Scripture wasn't Canonized in Paul's time. It was only passed on implicitly within the mystery of the oral Tradition, through the establishment of the Magisterium (Papacy and Bishops in union with it)

I can't accept the Protestant oral traditions because they lack evidence and are contrary to faith.

Paul says to to hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

That's what Catholics do. That's why we accept the N.T. Canon, even though it isn't documented until long after Paul's time, and that's why we accept the doctrine of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception.

Like I said, there's no sense talking with someone who believes what isn't there, yet insists it must be. C/u around.

 

[patricius79]

Like I said, there's no sense talking with someone who believes what isn't there, yet insists it must be. C/u around.

So are you denying the certainty of the N.T. Canon--along with the Immaculate Conception--because these are not explicit in Scripture?

Do you agree with the Bible that we should hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter?

 

[justinangel]

...and I can reply that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by "Pope" Leo the Great over 400 years after Christ.

Your reply is historically untenable.

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.”
Clement of Rome (Pope Clement l) Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]

“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty”
The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force”
Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans 1:1; 3:1 [A.D. 110]

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father (papa / pope) his children, the brethren who are journeying”

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement”
Dionysius of Corinth, Letter to Pope Soter 4:23:9; 4:23:11 [A.D. 170]

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]

“[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. … Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. … What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you.”
Pope Julius l, Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35)

Council of Sardica

“f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province”
Canon 3 [A.D. 342]

The Council of Ephesus

“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’”

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors.’”
Acts of the Council, session 2; session 3 [A.D. 431]

“Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head.”
Pope Leo l, Letters 14:11 [A.D. 445]

TOME OF LEO

'A doctrinal letter sent by Pope Leo I in the year 449 to Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, on the Church's teaching about the person of Christ. It affirms that Christ has two natures, human and divine, united in the one divine Person of the Son of God. Two years later, at the Council of Chalcedon, this letter was accepted with the declaration, "Peter has spoken through Leo," to define the classical Catholic doctrine on the Incarnation.'
See more at: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36881#sthash.tb5hb5mk.dpuf

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away."
Council of Chalcedon, Session II [A.D. 451]

Not according to the Bible.

What you've written here is nothing but your denomination's self-serving interpretation of the verse.

Not according to you. The ECFs rightly understood what 1 Timothy 3:15 means - that the Catholic Church is infallible in its teachings, being guided and protected by the Holy Spirit in the transmission of the unwritten and written word of God. And at that time there were no independent and autonomous denominations in Christendom, which Christ intended shouldn't exist by founding his one visible and hierarchical Church on Peter (the Rock) and the Apostles, so that we should all be one in faith. The Protestant concept of adiaphora was non-existent in the Patristic age.

"But [it has, on the other hand, been shown], that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples…For in the Church," it is said, "God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers,' and all the other means through which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behaviour. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:24 [A.D. 180]

"[F]or the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock, is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it."
Origen, On Matthew, 12:11 [A.D. 244]

“The Church, ordained by the Lord and established by His Apostles, is one for all; but the frantic folly of discordant sects has severed them from her. And it is obvious that these dissensions concerning the faith result from a distorted mind, which twists the words of Scripture into conformity with its opinion, instead of adjusting that opinion to the words of Scripture. And thus, amid the clash of mutually destructive errors, the Church stands revealed not only by her own teaching, but by that of her rivals. They are ranged, all of them, against her; and the very fact that she stands single and alone is her sufficient answer to their godless delusions. The hosts of heresy assemble themselves against her; each of them can defeat all the others, but not one can win a victory for itself. The only victory is the triumph which the Church celebrates over them all.”
Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 7:4 [A.D. 359]

“It follows after commendation of the Trinity, 'The Holy Church.' God is pointed out, and His temple. 'For the temple of God is holy,' says the Apostle, 'which (temple) are ye.' This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abideth in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. 'The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'”
Augustine, Sermon to the Catechumens on the Creed, 6:14 [A.D. 377]

.“'I have raised him up a king with justice, and all his ways are right.' The ways of Christ are right, and he has built the holy city, that is, the church, wherein also he dwelleth. For he abideth in the saints, and we have become temples of the living God, having Christ within us through the participation of the Holy Spirit. He, therefore, founded a church, himself being the foundation, in which we also, as rich and precious stones, are built into a holy temple, as a dwelling-place for God in the spirit; the church, having Christ for a foundation, and an immoveable support, is perfectly immoveable.”
Cyril of Alexandria, On Isaiah, 4 [A.D. 429]

 

[justinangel]

Like I said, there's no sense talking with someone who believes what isn't there, yet insists it must be. C/u around.

There's no sense in trying to explain something to someone who doesn't want to believe it is there.

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
― Thomas Aquinas

 

[Albion]

Your reply is historically untenable.

It's much more "tenable" than your theory about Henry VIII founding a new church. There is some question as to whether the Papal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, was started by Leo or by his immediate predecessor, but there's no question about Henry founding a new church. He didn't.

 

[Standing Up]

So are you denying the certainty of the N.T. Canon--along with the Immaculate Conception--because these are not explicit in Scripture?

Do you agree with the Bible that we should hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter?

What traditions should we hold fast to? The canon you thought existed in Paul's time, yet then denied it existed?

 

[Standing Up]

There's no sense in trying to explain something to someone who doesn't want to believe it is there.

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
― Thomas Aquinas

Tell us 5 traditions extant in Paul's time to which we should abide. Then you might have a point.

 

[patricius79]

It's much more "tenable" than your theory about Henry VIII founding a new church. There is some question as to whether the Papal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, was started by Leo or by his immediate predecessor, but there's no question about Henry founding a new church. He didn't.

How did Leo or his immediate predecessor "start" the Catholic Church?

 

[patricius79]

What traditions should we hold fast to? The canon you thought existed in Paul's time, yet then denied it existed?

I asked you if you agreed with 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and then I didn't get an answer. Is there a reason for that?

When did I deny that the N.T. Canon--like the doctrines of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception-- existed implicitly within the mystery of the oral Tradition of the Church?

 

[Albion]

I think the doctrines of the N.T. Canon, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Marian dogmas are not explicit in Scripture--the Bible never even refers to a New Testament Canon-- but they were present in an implicit, mysterious way in the oral Word of God (2 Timothy 2:2)...

Since there is nothing in that verse which has anything to do with those doctrines, you are choosing to believe whatever you find appealing to believe in. How can that be a correct way of deciding doctrine? And if it is, how could anyone who believes something else about these doctrines be faulted? Their judgment couldn't possibly be wrong if "I'll believe whatever I choose to believe" is your own guide.

Take the N.T. Canon and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception--two doctrines of the historic Catholic Church founded by Christ--for example: in what sense did the whole church believe these traditions from the beginning?

In no sense. They weren't believed in "from the beginning."

As you said, YOU believe in them simply because you find them to be personally appealing.