Immaculate Conception - Why Did It Take 1,854 Years to Discover This Doctrine? (2)

[sunlover1]

Right. So how does one get to the bottom of it?

Better yet, How does God give us a solution to this.

Read the Acts of the Apostles for the answer.

Peace.

What's your idea of the solution from God?
Where in acts?

 

[tiitmouse]

What are the choices?

It sounds like that the choice is to follow your own opinions or to submit to Church authority. Opinions seem to create denominations, but authority seems to create unity.

I have been wondering if our natural aversion to authority make us naturaly against an authoritative Church. As American, we broke with the idea of kings and royalty, and chose democratic principles to live by. Could this be why many people don't like the way the Catholic Church works, because they just don't like the idea of absolute authority? If so, does that make us hypocrites when we call Christ King?

 

[tiitmouse]

By the way, I just saw the most AMAZING thing on this EWTN channel. It was called "The Passion by Radix". One guy gave the most amazing performance for an hour about the end of Jesus' life - a one man show. I have never seen anything like it. I am serious. Has anybody heard of this "Radix" guy?

 

[sunlover1]

It sounds like that the choice is to follow your own opinions
or to submit to Church authority.

Or submit to the Spirit of God,
the Spirit of truth, that leads us into
all truth.
Which church btw?

Opinions seem to create denominations, but authority seems to create unity.

I so agree.

I have been wondering if our natural aversion to authority make us naturaly against an authoritative Church.

I happen to love authority. I'm very insecure, so there'd
be nothing I'd love more than for a preist or pope
to tell me how to think. One of the things I always
used to love about marriage.

As American, we broke with the idea of kings and royalty, and chose democratic principles to live by. Could this be why many people don't like the way the Catholic Church works,

No.

because they just don't like the idea of absolute authority?

Absolute authority? lol. My catholic friends must
not realise they're under 'absolute' authority, cos
most of em dont 'obey' the 'church. (unless your
church doesnt preach what the Bible does)

No, it's nothing like that. For me, personally, it
happened when I studied the Bible and saw
that that my church didnt seem to be in agreement
with God's Words.
Now as an adult I came to this website to investigate.
Found out that now there are two denominations
who claim to be the one true church.
That was helpful. lol.

Hope you find all you desire.
sunlover

 

[holdon]

Yes of course. Now where does one throw their hands up in the air to keep their focus on Jesus instead of laws?

Oh, you may have to do that from time to time. Or just sleep on it.

What about Mark, Luke, and Paul who never knew Jesus?

What about them?

Do you know the history of the Septuagint most likely read by Jesus?

Well, did He recite it in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew?

Exactly, the process of hermeneutics begins with the explicits of scripture, how then does one extrapolate the truth from the implicit beliefs and sustain them as true?

One believes the revelation. If it is not correct, it is not revelation and one doesn't believe it.

Good night to you too.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Why would people have believed it for so long? What would be the point in making something like that up?

The point is it looks like it was an attempt to rationalize something that human beings cannot possibly fully comprehend. God.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Thank you Athanasias for the quite detailed and informative post.

First of all She doesn't "have" to be immaculate. God could have done what he wanted without making her Immaculate. But God choose to honor her by making her immaculate because it would be fitting for her to be since God made her the typological fulfillment of the Ark of the covenant and the Eve and completed her and endowed her completely with his grace.

I still don't understand how the statement 'Hail, full of grace' would lead to her being born without sin.

We do not get our info from the book of Adam and Eve for this dogma. We get it from Scripture itself and the teachings of the early Christians.

I was referring to the protoevangelion of james, I was using the 'adam and eve' book just to describe the method by which it seems like someone was trying to 'fill in the gaps'.

Yes we understand that you do not believe it but in our Catholic understanding and the early Churches her immaculate conception is in scripture implicitly. So we dissagree with you!

I respect your right to disagree. I personally believe that the fate of my soul rests with the grace of God, and that if He wants me to understand His work, then He will give me the wisdom to do so.

How you ask? Well here goes again!

Mary in the New Testament is also a fulfillment of certain types namely Eve and the Ark of the Covenant. In Genesis Eve is described as a “Women” who disobeyed God. Genesis describes one woman (Eve) and one man (Adam) who are created initially immaculate. The woman and man are approached by one angel (who is fallen, the Devil) and they choose freely to dis-obey God and eat one food from one tree that would cause death for a whole race. In Luke’s gospel the same is seen but only in reversed and redemptive way. In Luke one woman (Mary) is visited by one angel (who is holy, Gabriel) and this one woman freely chooses to obey and ac-cept God’s plan for her, unlike Eve. This one women would give birth to one man -Jesus Christ- who would die for all on a tree and give the world one food to eat that would give life to the whole human race (Holy Communion). Mary is truly the fulfillment of Eve as Jesus is of Adam. Catholic Scripture scholar Dr. Scott Hahn demonstrates that Mary is called by the title “woman” by Jesus himself and in Rev 12:1-17 one discovers that the “woman” who is described as a ful-fillment of Eve is the Mother of God herself.
The Fathers of the Church saw Mary as the fulfillment of Eve too. St. Justin Martyr in 155 A.D. made direct comparisons to Mary and Eve on a redemptive level. St. Ireneuas spoke of Mary as a fulfillment of Eve stating that in Luke’s Gospel Mary loosed the knot of sin that Eve bound the world in. Even as early as the late 1st century the writings of Mathetes spoke of a new incorrupt Eve who was a Virgin.

Thank you for explaining your position. I can see the comparison that you are putting forth, but I still fail to agree with her immaculate conception, sinless life, perpetual virginity, and assumption into heaven. I believe that we limit ourselves and our God when we do the whole "we see 'this' and 'this', so therefore 'that' must have happened' My feelings rest in ecclesiastes 11:5.

The typology of Mary as New Eve is important to the Immaculate Conception because it shows implicit evidence for the doctrine. Remembering that all New Testament fulfillments are far greater and more powerful than their Old Testament types one can only conclude that Mary is immaculately conceived.

I feel like that the doctrine rests more on assumption, rather than written evidence.

Eve and Adam were created without sin; Jesus and Mary fulfill their types.

Eve was created from Adam, and was his wife, so the family structure comparison there is a bit skewed.

Just as the new Adam, Jesus is sinless, so too the new Eve, Mary. If Mary was not con-ceived sinless she would be a inferior type to Eve.

inferior to who?

This is why many fathers of the church, such as St. Augustine in his work “Nature and Grace” , freely and confidently proclaimed Mary to be sinless.

I could end a statement proving the doctrine of geo-centricism the same way.

Another type Mary fulfills is the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant contained three things: the Manna from heaven, the rod of Aaron (a sign of high priestly Authority), and the ten words (or Ten Commandments) of God. Mary carried in her womb the fulfillment of all three of those things. Jesus Christ is the new manna from heaven and is the new covenant high priest who rules the new kingdom (the church with a rod of iron). Like the ten words carried in the Ark, Jesus is the Word of God incarnate himself. The United States Catholic Bishops show how St. Luke presented Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant in parallels in their pastoral letter. For example, if one compares 2 Sam 6 with Luke 1 they will find Mary being presented as the new Ark. In 2 Sam 6:2 David arose and went to Judah; in Luke 1:39 Mary arose and went to Judah. In 2 Sam 6:9 David ask “How can the ark of the Lord come to Me”. In Luke 1:43 Elizabeth uses almost identical language saying “ why is this granted me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me.” In 2 Sam 6:11 the Ark remained for three months. In Lk 1:56 Mary stays three months with Elizabeth. In 2 Sam 6:12 David rejoices; in Lk 1:47 Mary’s spirit rejoices. In 2 Sam 6:16 there is leaping and dancing. In Lk 1:41 the babe leaps in Elizabeth's womb. Also interesting to note is the Ark of the Covenant was overshadowed by the Spirit of God. Luke used similar language that the Septuagint (Greek translations of the Old Testament) use in Exodus describing the Ark being overshadowed to describe Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Clearly St. Luke sees Mary as typologically the fulfillment of the Ark.

Scripture Scholar Dr. Scott Hahn also shows how gospel writer John reveals Mary as the New Ark in the Book of Revelation(Rev 11:19). The ark of God’s heavenly covenant is revealed, and in the very next verse(Rev 12:1) the woman, Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, appears. Dr. Hahn reminds readers that when Scripture was written there were no chapters and verses, and when the Book of Revelation is read in its immediate and typological context the Ark is revealed as Mary.


Fathers of the Church like St. Hippolytus, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose had openly proclaimed Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant and many of the fathers of the church also spoke of her being sinless. The earliest hymns written in praise of Mary spoke of Mary as “with-out stain or blemish” and also spoke of her as “Ark Gilded by the Holy Ghost”. If Mary is truly a fulfillment of the Ark then her Immaculate Conception makes sense. What the old ark contained could not be touched by sin. One had to be sanctified from sin just to carry the ark due to its precious cargo(1 Chron 15:12-14). Uzzuh was himself killed because he was a sinful man who touched the ark (2Sam 6:6-8). If the old covenant ark could not be touched by sin because of what it carried, how much more would the new covenant fulfillment of the ark (Mary) not be touched by sin for what she carried. For the wisdom of God will not dwell in a body under the debt of sin(Wis 1:4), and Jesus Christ is wisdom personified(1 Cor 1:24).

Thank you for the ark comparison. I've read it before, but its always nice to refresh.

Hence Mary’s Immaculate Conception is biblically implicit and made explicit by apostolic tradition and councils such as other Christian dogmas like the Trinity.

No there is a difference, I agree with the Trinity .

One thing I still don't understand about it, is that such a thing as immaculate conception, sinless nature, perpetual virginity, and assumption, are very very important events. Yet none of them are recorded in the gospels. There is only one other virgin birth even alluded to in scripture, you can guess whose that is. A complete sinless nature, Paul says we all fall short of the glory of God. I don't recall any other allusion to someone having a sinless nature, well besides One, you can guess who that is, again . Perpetual virginity is even harder to swallow, because scripture clearly states that Jesus had siblings. Heck, His brother James played a large factor in the early church. There is no support, no mention of Joseph having kids before Jesus, no mention of these children at all before the birth of Jesus either. The only defense to the perpetual virginity claim is by citing the other questionable doctrines that I mentioned. And then the assumption, of course, falls along the same lines. The story needed an end I suppose. Enoch and Elijah were taken up, so why not, right?

There is little emphasis on Mary in the gospels, so why is the church putting so much emphasis on her now? Do you think she'd want to have such reverence, and prayers tossed at her, when, by all biblical accounts, she gives all the glory to God. Even Jesus Himself told us to pray to the Father.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Good morning Joab,

This belief is not a matter of faith; as Catholics we can hold that Joseph was or was not a widower when he married Mary. It's a speculative question that we can't really answer with absolute certainty. But the ancient sources are interesting.

Thats why I don't assume Mary was a perpetual virgin.

The idea that he was a widower first came up in the Proto-evangelium of James.That's one of the apocryphal Gospels, so it's not a reliable historical source but it shows what early Christians thought.

I agree.

The reason he's portrayed as a widower is to explain who Jesus' "brothers" are.

Why would there be a need to explain who His 'brothers' are, unless someone already made the claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin? Sure makes that theory work alot better, doesn't it?

As well, the brothers of Jesus weren't mentioned until Jesus was an adult and Joeseph had already disappeared from the scene sometime in the 18 years between the finding in the temple and the wedding feast at Cana.

I speculate that Josephs pervious children didn't live with Joseph at the time of Jesus birth.

I agree, because they weren't born yet.

Peace.

Take care and God bless, my friend.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Then what happens when both opinions are apparently scriptural and there is a stalemate, are both of the Holy Spirit?

Keep in mind that often times, that arguments are based on speculation. And often times, it is for instance, Perpetual virginity, against "no reason to believe she was a perpetual virgin", which are not polar opposites.


I believe that if we constantly focus on finding absolutes, that our search for enlightenment becomes blurred.

 

[JoabAnias]

Perpetual virginity, against "no reason to believe she was a perpetual virgin", which are not polar opposites.

And I am not arguing but I do have reason to believe she was a Virgin all her life. I present what I believe and why when asked.

I believe that if we constantly focus on finding absolutes, that our search for enlightenment becomes blurred.

Once enlightenment is given by the Holy Spirit the absolutes make sense .

 

[Trento]

Interesting analogy but totally irrelevant. The immaculate conception is not a rock that you found somewhere but a dogma created for a purpose. There is no scriptural backing for this belief.

Mary's Magnificat was voiced just after Elizabeth greeted her as the Mother of the Lord. This was well before she gave birth to Jesus.

So the question to ask is....How can Mary be rejoicing in God her Savior, when the Savior was not yet even born, let alone completed His redemptive work on the cross. UNLESS, she was saved from her sin prior to this time. The angel called her "one having been already fully graced.

 

[Hentenza]

Mary's Magnificat was voiced just after Elizabeth greeted her as the Mother of the Lord. This was well before she gave birth to Jesus.

So the question to ask is....How can Mary be rejoicing in God her Savior, when the Savior was not yet even born, let alone completed His redemptive work on the cross. UNLESS, she was saved from her sin prior to this time. The angel called her "one having been already fully graced.

Well why don't we just diminish the fruit in her womb and give all the credit to Mary instead.

There is absolutely nothing biblical about Mary being sinless. On the contrary, why would she need a savior if she was sinless?
The angel's words were "30The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God." Having found favor and being "already fully graced" are completely different.

 

[Athanasias]

Well why don't we just diminish the fruit in her womb and give all the credit to Mary instead.

There is absolutely nothing biblical about Mary being sinless. On the contrary, why would she need a savior if she was sinless?
The angel's words were "30The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God." Having found favor and being "already fully graced" are completely different.

Mary did have a savior. Catholics teach this! Jesus was her savior. Amen! Jesus is the only savior of the human race as the Catholic church teaches. Jesus just saved her from sin at conception unlike the rest of us. The rest of us fall in the mud and Jesus saves us by pulling us out. Mary was saved by being prevented from falling in the mud in the first place.

A New testament Greek professor Fr Mateo would dissagree with you.

Here is what he had to say about Her being Full of grace or favored(Lk 1:28).

" Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the "continuance of a completed action";(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) "completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem."(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.) On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." This becomes clearer when we examine other New Testament examples of verbs in the perfect tenseThe next three examples are taken from Blass and DeBrunner, 175-176.)"

Taken from : http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209fea2.asp

 

[WashedClean]

Mary did have a savior. Catholics teach this! Jesus was her savior. Amen! Jesus is the only savior of the human race as the Catholic church teaches. Jesus just saved her from sin at conception unlike the rest of us. The rest of us fall in the mud and Jesus saves us by pulling us out. Mary was saved by being prevented from falling in the mud in the first place.

If this is possible, then why doesn't God just do this for all of us and not put Jesus through the Cross????

 

[Athanasias]

If this is possible, then why doesn't God just do this for all of us and not put Jesus through the Cross????

All things are possible with God. You would have to ask God why he doesn't do it for all of us I surely don't know. I suspect he did it for her out of reverence and honor for her because she is his Mother and carried the Word of God literally in her and because she is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant, and the second Eve biblically.

It is because of Jesus cross that she was freed from sin. God is not bound by time and space. The Cross and its merits are not a thing of the past or present to God, To him they are the eternal now. He simply applies to us his grace and merits of the cross today even though they happened 2000 years ago. He does the same but in reverse order to Mary . He simply applied his merits and his Full grace of the Cross to her before it even happened in time and space on earth. A precious gift to his mother out of honor for her and a sign to the Church of what we will all be like eventually as she typifies the Church biblically.

 

[WashedClean]

All things are possible with God. You would have to ask God why he doesn't do it for all of us I surely don't know. I suspect he did it for her out of reverence and honor for her because she is his Mother and carried the Word of God literally in her and because she is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant, and the second Eve biblically. .

Sorry, but I find this really disturbing.. Now God reverences his creation? I don't mean to pounce on your wording, but let's just leave it at "we don't know".

It is because of Jesus cross that she was freed from sin. God is not bound by time and space. The Cross and its merits are not a thing of the past or present to God, To him they are the eternal now. He simply applies to us his grace and merits of the cross today even though they happened 2000 years ago. He does the same but in reverse order to Mary . He simply applied his merits and his Full grace of the Cross to her before it even happened in time and space on earth. A precious gift to his mother out of honor for her and a sign to the Church of what we will all be like eventually as she typifies the Church biblically.

Yeah, I know God exists outside of time. And I've heard this "argument" before. Again, you're elevating Mary and saying that Jesus/God needs to honor her.

What about Isaiah 42, verse 8, "I am the Lord, that is My name; My glory I give to no other"

 

[JoabAnias]

Sorry, but I find this really disturbing.. Now God reverences his creation? I don't mean to pounce on your wording, but let's just leave it at "we don't know".



Yeah, I know God exists outside of time. And I've heard this "argument" before. Again, you're elevating Mary and saying that Jesus/God needs to honor her.

What about Isaiah 42, verse 8, "I am the Lord, that is My name; My glory I give to no other"

God doesn't need to, He chooses to exhault who He wishes. Our Lord says it will always be the most humble though and that the last will be first and the first last.

It depends on where we put ourselves of where we stand with God. The rest is His doing.

 

[JoabAnias]

If this is possible, then why doesn't God just do this for all of us and not put Jesus through the Cross????

Because the cross is the example of how He shows us its to be done.

By denying ourselves and taking up our crosses in obedience to His will and not our own.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

All things are possible with God. You would have to ask God why he doesn't do it for all of us I surely don't know. I suspect he did it for her out of reverence and honor for her because she is his Mother and carried the Word of God literally in her and because she is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant, and the second Eve biblically.

God is not a respecter of persons

It is because of Jesus cross that she was freed from sin. God is not bound by time and space. The Cross and its merits are not a thing of the past or present to God, To him they are the eternal now. He simply applies to us his grace and merits of the cross today even though they happened 2000 years ago. He does the same but in reverse order to Mary . He simply applied his merits and his Full grace of the Cross to her before it even happened in time and space on earth. A precious gift to his mother out of honor for her and a sign to the Church of what we will all be like eventually as she typifies the Church biblically.

This concept is not based on biblical evidence at all, it's just speculation in attempt to defend a tradition which didn't have any biblical support, and then was built on with other traditions using the same faulty concept. The entire series of beliefs stems from trying to understand how our Lord could be brought onto this earth through a normal person. The idea is He couldn't, so grown from that is: Immaculate conception, sinless nature, perpetual virginity, bodily assumption into heaven, and even as far as claims of co-redeemer or mediatrix.
Christ says to deny ourselves and follow Him, not deny ourselves, and then ask Mary to see if we can follow Him. God is the creator of life, and all things live through Him. He knows all things, so to pray to someone other than Him is pointless, since the prayer goes through Him first anyway.
On that note, the biblical Mary lived a great life of humility. That being said, I find no reason why she would want, or even allow anyone to revere her, rather than revering the God who she devoutly followed.

You may see it as a great and valid thing, but I see people kissing statues and putting offerings in front of them.

 

[JoabAnias]

Well why don't we just diminish the fruit in her womb and give all the credit to Mary instead.

Well because Mary is human and always subordinate to God.

There is absolutely nothing biblical about Mary being sinless. On the contrary, why would she need a savior if she was sinless?
The angel's words were "30The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God." Having found favor and being "already fully graced" are completely different.

Its tradition with capital T. It isn't necessary to be explicitly relative to scripture in such an instance so long as its not contradictory. For better understanding take into account the relationship between Tradition and Scripture keeping in mind that we do not subscribe to either as the sole established rule for guidance (canon) but as both as complimentary to each other.

We have more than one way at arriving at truth.

• By "Letter", the written word, the Bible
• By "Oral Statement", handing on, paradosis, tradition

The Church’s teaching authority, magisterium, is the method by which the Holy Spirit guides the Church in truth handling.

The Bible itself does not define what it includes; nor does it claim to contain all that God revealed. Paul affirms that some of what is handed on--the way Jews passed on revelation--was "by letter," in writing.

A primary criterion of canonicity is inspiration, the divine influence on human writers such that God is said to be the author. And God's revelation, faithfully written, aptly expressed, was expressed with infallible truth.

We discover the meaning of the Bible--hermeneutics--by the literal sense of the words first, then the fuller sense, and then the typical sense of the words of Sacred Scripture.

So you see scripture is in the context of tradition and visa versa. They are inseperable in that respect. To seperate them is to take one of them out of context entirely.


Peace.