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

[Brennin]

Excerpt from the Seventh Council of Carthage, Cyprian presiding:

It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.

 

[Brennin]

One can have a open dispute and still be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Many saints have disputed the Popes and a few corrected him. They were still in communion with Rome. Again you cannot ignore the fact that Cyprian in his writing's makes it explicit that he was in communion with the Pope of Rome of the time. And in fact he he shows in his writings that it is necessity to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome and the Chair of Peter the center of Sacerdotal Priestly ministry to be Catholic.

Are you blind? Cornelius is not Stephen. Cyprian was not in communion with Stephen, nor did he recognize him as "pope."

 

[Albion]

One can have a open dispute and still be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Many saints have disputed the Popes and a few corrected him. They were still in communion with Rome. Again you cannot ignore the fact that Cyprian in his writing's makes it explicit that he was in communion with the Pope of Rome of the time. And in fact he he shows in his writings that it is necessity to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome and the Chair of Peter the center of Sacerdotal Priestly ministry to be Catholic.

Whatever Cyprian might have thought on the subject of the Immaculate Conception, or if had any notion of it at all...it doesn't prove anything one way or the other. That's the bottom line here.

Unless the Church, not any individual, believed in it, and from the beginning, it cannot be argued from Tradition (even if we were to accept Tradition as equal to or complimentary to Scripture).

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

You are, of course, wrong. Cyprian and Firmilian were not in communion with Rome but they referred to themselves as Catholic and rightly so. You need to broaden your horizon beyond RC apologia.

Here's what he wrote:

". . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?"

The guy wrote "The United of the Catholic Church", you might try reading it. He was very much in union with Rome.

As for apologia, I read the original sources. I have his works and many others on bookshelf next to me.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The following is an excerpt from Bishop Firmilian's epistle to Bishop Cyprian:

6. But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.

No offense, but he was an idiot. He threw a temper tantrum against the pope because he wouldn't rebaptize heretics. He is certainly not a Church father and demostrated a flawed understanding about the Church's theology.

 

[Brennin]

No offense, but he was an idiot. He threw a temper tantrum against the pope because he wouldn't rebaptize heretics. He is certainly not a Church father and demostrated a flawed understanding about the Church's theology.

No, he was not an idiot. Several of your popes have been, however.

 

[Athanasias]

Whatever Cyprian might have thought on the subject of the Immaculate Conception, or if had any notion of it at all...it doesn't prove anything one way or the other. That's the bottom line here.

Unless the Church, not any individual, believed in it, and from the beginning, it cannot be argued from Tradition (even if we were to accept Tradition as equal to or complimentary to Scripture).

I never said Cyrian mentioned the IC.

The "roots" of IC doctrine(as all doctirne develops) is found
in Apostolic tradition begginning with Mathetes, St Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, Hippolytus. Origen, St. Ephraem and his early Liturgical Marian hymns, St Ambrose. St Augustine, Proclus of Constantinople, Theodotus of Ancrya, Jacob of Sarug, Andrew of Crete, St John of Damascus.

 

[Brennin]

Here's what he wrote:

". . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?"

The guy wrote "The United of the Catholic Church", you might try reading it. He was very much in union with Rome.

As for apologia, I read the original sources. I have his works and many others on bookshelf next to me.

If you had read the originals then you would know that Cyprian's view of Church governance is that of bishops exercising equal authority. He sees all bishops as successors to Peter, not just your "pope."

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

No, he was not an idiot. Several of your popes have been, however.

That's cute, but the guy's theology was completely out of whack and wrong. You can't rebaptize heretics. I can't think of even a mainstream protestant group that would advocate such a thing.

The point is mute, because there have been several heretical bishops from time to time. This guy is not a Church father. I can give you the names of plenty of bad bishops that have an axe to grind against the Church, it doesn't mean anything.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

If you had read the originals then you would know that Cyprian's view of Church governance is that of bishops exercising equal authority. He sees all bishops as successors to Peter, not just your "pope."

I have both versions. If you want to discuss the two editions, I'll be more than happy to- considering I've written a great deal on it.

For now, I got to go.

 

[Brennin]

That's cute, but the guy's theology was completely out of whack and wrong. You can't rebaptize heretics. I can't think of even a mainstream protestant group that would advocate such a thing.

The point is mute, because there have been several heretical bishops from time to time. This guy is not a Church father. I can give you the names of plenty of bad bishops that have an axe to grind against the Church, it doesn't mean anything.

Your church rebaptizes those who do not follow the "correct" formula, which is exactly what Firmilian and Cyprian advocated.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Baptismal correctness" (chuckle)
1Cor1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

Wow! Thanking God for not having baptized!
It's sorta kinda like saying, "Thank God I saved nobody but these two!" if I'm understandin' some of y'all.

(...& you know who you are! )

 

[Catholic Christian]

Your church rebaptizes those who do not follow the "correct" formula, which is exactly what Firmilian and Cyprian advocated.

Its not re-baptizing if there was no valid baptism in the first place.

 

[Brennin]

Its not re-baptizing if there was no valid baptism in the first place.

That is Firmilian and Cyprian's view.

 

[Catholic Christian]

That is Firmilian and Cyprian's view.

okay

 

[Athanasias]

Some Protestants would argue that Mary could not be sinless because she proclaimed that she herself had a savior. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary did have a savior, Jesus Christ, but there are two ways to be saved. One can be saved by being pulled out of the mud or one can be saved by being prevented from falling in the mud. Mary’s salvation was given by Christ at her conception, anticipation for what all Christians hope for at the second coming.

An-other common objection that non-Catholics raise is Romans 3:23 which says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. The context of St. Paul’s writings explains how this mes-sage does not pertain to Mary. Paul, when he used the word “all”, was not describing every sin-gle person but rather he was using a general meaning. One can tell this by the context. Paul was speaking of personal sin and arguing that just because one was a Jew does not give him special claim to salvation. All have fallen short, both Jews and Gentiles. If St. Paul were speaking of every single human being that was born he would have to include infants, the mentally handi-capped, and Jesus, all of whom cannot sin. They are exceptions. Mary is also an exception be-cause of her roles as the Ark of the Covenant and new Eve.

To understand this dogma one must first understand biblical typology. Biblical typology is the study of how people and things in the Old Testament foreshadow certain fulfillments in the New Testament. Every typological fulfillment in the New Testament is greater and more real and powerful then its Old Testament type. For example, St. Paul reminds us that Jesus is a typological fulfillment of Adam. One can see parallels between Adam and Christ. For through Adam all death comes and through Christ all life comes. Jesus is everything that Adam was and more. Jesus obeyed the Father perfectly, unlike Adam. Jesus fulfills and destroys Adams curse.


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.


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



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). Hence Mary’s Immaculate Conception is biblically implicit.

 

[Brennin]

Some Protestants would argue that Mary could not be sinless because she proclaimed that she herself had a savior. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary did have a savior, Jesus Christ, but there are two ways to be saved. One can be saved by being pulled out of the mud or one can be saved by being prevented from falling in the mud. Mary’s salvation was given by Christ at her conception, anticipation for what all Christians hope for at the second coming.

An-other common objection that non-Catholics raise is Romans 3:23 which says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. The context of St. Paul’s writings explains how this mes-sage does not pertain to Mary. Paul, when he used the word “all”, was not describing every sin-gle person but rather he was using a general meaning. One can tell this by the context. Paul was speaking of personal sin and arguing that just because one was a Jew does not give him special claim to salvation. All have fallen short, both Jews and Gentiles. If St. Paul were speaking of every single human being that was born he would have to include infants, the mentally handi-capped, and Jesus, all of whom cannot sin. They are exceptions. Mary is also an exception be-cause of her roles as the Ark of the Covenant and new Eve.

To understand this dogma one must first understand biblical typology. Biblical typology is the study of how people and things in the Old Testament foreshadow certain fulfillments in the New Testament. Every typological fulfillment in the New Testament is greater and more real and powerful then its Old Testament type. For example, St. Paul reminds us that Jesus is a typological fulfillment of Adam. One can see parallels between Adam and Christ. For through Adam all death comes and through Christ all life comes. Jesus is everything that Adam was and more. Jesus obeyed the Father perfectly, unlike Adam. Jesus fulfills and destroys Adams curse.


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.


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



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 the same Greek word 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). Hence Mary’s Immaculate Conception is biblically implicit.

This is a lot of nonsense wrapped up in a bow. Of course Jesus is exempted in Paul's statement; he is the instrument of salvation and elsewhere it is made clear that he is sinless. Moreover, Roman Catholics believe in original sin, which is glaringly inconsistent with the weak apologia you and other Roman Catholics have posted.

 

[Albion]

As I Protestant myself, I'd like to tell you why I don't believe this theory about Mary. That should be permissible, after hearing all the "some Protestants say" arguments.

I don't believe it because there is not one shred of evidence in the Word of God that suggests it or would make it necessary, let alone necessary for the purposes for which God gave us guidance in scripture.

The claims come from the all-too-human tendency to heap honors upon honors upon revered personages of the past. Alexander the Great, for example, was said to have gone to the bottom of the sea in a mini-sub, ascended to heaven, discovered a tribe of headless men, and much more in that vein. We even do this with our own national heroes, making Lincoln, JFK, MLK, and many others bigger than life as we build more monuments to them and dedicate or name more buildings and streets after thejm. The Immaculate Conception was an earlier time's way of making the simple Hebrew girl who obeyed God into a demi-god.

 

[Athanasias]

This is a lot of nonsense wrapped up in a bow. Of course Jesus is exempted in Paul's statement; he is the instrument of salvation and elsewhere it is made clear that he is sinless. Moreover, Roman Catholics believe in original sin, which is glaringly inconsistent with the weak apologia you and other Roman Catholics have posted.

If the apology I offered in my post # 916 is so inconsistently weak then why have you not dealt with any of the implicitly biblical evidence I offered?? The types of Mary I mentioned didn't seem inconsistent to the early Christians(Centuries 1-7) nor did her sinlessness in root form. Original sin does not hinder her Immaculate Conception because the official Catholic dogma states that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin as a gift from her divine son.You reply to my strong biblical and historical apology is no reply at all but rather a boohoo from a disenchanted protestant outlook that can't handle a solid Catholic biblical response.

 

[Athanasias]

As I Protestant myself, I'd like to tell you why I don't believe this theory about Mary. That should be permissible, after hearing all the "some Protestants say" arguments.

I don't believe it because there is not one shred of evidence in the Word of God that suggests it or would make it necessary, let alone necessary for the purposes for which God gave us guidance in scripture.

The claims come from the all-too-human tendency to heap honors upon honors upon revered personages of the past. Alexander the Great, for example, was said to have gone to the bottom of the sea in a mini-sub, ascended to heaven, discovered a tribe of headless men, and much more in that vein. We even do this with our own national heroes, making Lincoln, JFK, MLK, and many others bigger than life as we build more monuments to them and dedicate or name more buildings and streets after thejm. The Immaculate Conception was an earlier time's way of making the simple Hebrew girl who obeyed God into a demi-god.

The Catholic church did not make Mary into a demi-God. She is given honor because of her position she holds biblically. There is nothing wrong with giving someone honor. St Paul tells us that the Elders in the Church are to receive double honor(1 Tim 5:17). The book of Hebrews chapter's 11-12 are a great examples of writing in honor and praise of the old testament saints. Jesus Christ obeyed the law perfectly. Part of that law was the command to Honor your mother and father. The Hebrew word for honor actually means to glorify. Jesus glorified his mother by her Immaculate Conception. We simply imitate Jesus and glorify her/honor her too. She was much more than a simple Hebrew Girl biblically speaking. I suppose you didn't read my Biblical reason for her Immaculate Conception in my earlier post. Well I guess I will just have to post the biblical reasons again. Here goes.

Some Protestants would argue that Mary could not be sinless because she proclaimed that she herself had a savior. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary did have a savior, Jesus Christ, but there are two ways to be saved. One can be saved by being pulled out of the mud or one can be saved by being prevented from falling in the mud. Mary’s salvation was given by Christ at her conception, anticipation for what all Christians hope for at the second coming.

An-other common objection that non-Catholics raise is Romans 3:23 which says “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. The context of St. Paul’s writings explains how this mes-sage does not pertain to Mary. Paul, when he used the word “all”, was not describing every sin-gle person but rather he was using a general meaning. One can tell this by the context. Paul was speaking of personal sin and arguing that just because one was a Jew does not give him special claim to salvation. All have fallen short, both Jews and Gentiles. If St. Paul were speaking of every single human being that was born he would have to include infants, the mentally handi-capped, and Jesus, all of whom cannot sin. They are exceptions. Mary is also an exception be-cause of her roles as the Ark of the Covenant and new Eve.

To understand this dogma one must first understand biblical typology. Biblical typology is the study of how people and things in the Old Testament foreshadow certain fulfillments in the New Testament. Every typological fulfillment in the New Testament is greater and more real and powerful then its Old Testament type. For example, St. Paul reminds us that Jesus is a typological fulfillment of Adam. One can see parallels between Adam and Christ. For through Adam all death comes and through Christ all life comes. Jesus is everything that Adam was and more. Jesus obeyed the Father perfectly, unlike Adam. Jesus fulfills and destroys Adams curse.


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.


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



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). Hence Mary’s Immaculate Conception is biblically implicit.