Immaculate Conception???

[Phil 1:21]

Notice that it doesn't say anything like "Mary had to be sinless in order to give birth to Christ".

"In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace."

Does the Catholic Church believe her free assent was not required? Maybe we should start a #metoo movement for Mary.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Just curious: What was RCC purpose of making Mary perpetually a virgin, when scripture implies only until she gave birth to Jesus?

It only implies this in the English because of the English usage of the world until. In Greek the word does not imply that the action had to have happened afterward. The RCC did not make the ever virgin tradition, as it has been around since the earliest writings of the church, as well as the assumption.

Joseph is recorded as being elderly by the time Mary was betrothed to him, with several children already. She was betrothed to him for protection. She was brought up in the temple as her mother gave her to the priests much like Samuel was given. When she hit puberty is was no longer appropriate for her to be in the temple so a suitable caretaker was found in the pious Joseph.

It is incocievable to think that Joseph would use her womb, which had been made holy by the spirit, to resume regular marriage relations. Jews were focused all on cleanliness, such such a thing would have been unthinkable.

The Bible only uses the word "overshadowed" in two instances. When God overshadows the ark of the covenant, and when the Spirit overshadows Mary. This is making her a clear analogy to the Holy of Holies, the second ark.

Not only that, but Christ puts her in the care of John while he is dying. If Mary had had other children, traditionally she would have been put in the care of them, as apposed to John, a non-relation.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Why Evangelicals Need Mary - Orthodox Reformed Bridge

I recommend this article to anyone with questions about the apostolic view on Mary. It's true that the RCC has made additions. We have not.

 

[1stcenturylady]

“And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.”

You can doubt that Mary is co-redemptrix, which isn't even RC dogma if I'm not mistaken- but I don't think you can argue that she isn't the Queen of heaven.

It is blasphemous to think that God would consumate with a woman out of wedlock, and therefore we must assume that Mary was the bride of God, and since the God is King, then Mary is queen.

The question is whether she was sinless however. The church fathers do not say and so the EO does not take an official stance. We certainly believe she was ever virgin, and sinless after she was purified by the conception of Christ, but beforehand is speculation.

Most Orthodox including myself believe she was in perfect submission early in childhood and that is why she was chosen, and why she was able to submit and become the perfect Eve. You must also think that in Order for Christ to keep the law and also obey his mother, which is part of the law- she could not have ever asked him to do something sinful, which in itself would be an argument for her latter sinlessness.

You can believe what you like about Mary, but you need to rethink Revelation 12. That is not Mary with the twelve stars, but Israel. The symbolism refers back to Joseph's dream, and the reason his brothers wanted him dead.

Genesis 37:9 Then he dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, “Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me.”

Joseph's heir was the twelfth star.

The twelve stars were the 12 tribes of Israel, God's chosen people and the ancestor of Jesus, the Child in Rev. 12

Every time there is a list of the tribes, there were more people than tribes. For instance, in some list Dan is excluded and one of Joseph's son is named, etc.

 

[1stcenturylady]

It only implies this in the English because of the English usage of the world until. In Greek the word does not imply that the action had to have happened afterward. The RCC did not make the ever virgin tradition, as it has been around since the earliest writings of the church, as well as the assumption.

Joseph is recorded as being elderly by the time Mary was betrothed to him, with several children already. She was betrothed to him for protection. She was brought up in the temple as her mother gave her to the priests much like Samuel was given. When she hit puberty is was no longer appropriate for her to be in the temple so a suitable caretaker was found in the pious Joseph.

It is incocievable to think that Joseph would use her womb, which had been made holy by the spirit, to resume regular marriage relations. Jews were focused all on cleanliness, such such a thing would have been unthinkable.

The Bible only uses the word "overshadowed" in two instances. When God overshadows the ark of the covenant, and when the Spirit overshadows Mary. This is making her a clear analogy to the Holy of Holies, the second ark.

Not only that, but Christ puts her in the care of John while he is dying. If Mary had had other children, traditionally she would have been put in the care of them, as apposed to John, a non-relation.

Thanks. But can't you give me resources, rather than "is recorded." That could just come out of someone's imagination, rather than fact. What is the resource.

 

[1stcenturylady]

[Staff edit].

The real focus we should be talking about is are you born of God with a sinless spirit too?

 

[☦Marius☦]

Thanks. But can't you give me resources, rather than "is recorded." That could just come out of someone's imagination, rather than fact. What is the resource.

Look up the protoevangelicon of James. It's a complication of early church teachings on Mary's Childhood and betrothal that dates about 120ad

 

[☦Marius☦]

You can believe what you like about Mary, but you need to rethink Revelation 12. That is not Mary with the twelve stars, but Israel. The symbolism refers back to Joseph's dream, and the reason his brothers wanted him dead.

Genesis 37:9 Then he dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, “Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me.”

Joseph's heir was the twelfth star.

The twelve stars were the 12 tribes of Israel, God's chosen people and the ancestor of Jesus, the Child in Rev. 12

Every time there is a list of the tribes, there were more people than tribes. For instance, in some list Dan is excluded and one of Joseph's son is named, etc.

I don't recall in Joseph's dream a woman about to give birth to a child with a dragon waiting to eat it...

Obviously the 12 stars represent Israel, but please do try to explain how the woman isn't Mary, the child Christ, and the dragon Satan trying to destroy Christ.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Look up the protoevangelicon of James. It's a complication of early church teachings on Mary's Childhood and betrothal that dates about 120ad

Interesting, but so far what I've read says 145 ad to 200 ad. And that it was not written by James the brother of Jesus. Most early church fathers claimed it was not true, therefore, not canonical. Another name for it was about the "infancy" of Jesus which if it is the same as I have, was pure fantasy.

Thanks for the resources. I may read further just to see what all Catholics believe, as I'm not one. It's funny, years ago before I joined the first Christian forums, I never knew what Calvinists or Arminians believes either. I learn a lot on sites like this.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I don't recall in Joseph's dream a woman about to give birth to a child with a dragon waiting to eat it...

Obviously the 12 stars represent Israel, but please do try to explain how the woman isn't Mary, the child Christ, and the dragon Satan trying to destroy Christ.

Believe what you want. But to understand Revelation, you need to know Old Testament prophecies. Its all there if you seek out truth.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Interesting, but so far what I've read says 145 ad to 200 ad. And that it was not written by James the brother of Jesus. Most early church fathers claimed it was not true, therefore, not canonical. Another name for it was about the "infancy" of Jesus which if it is the same as I have, was pure fantasy.

Thanks for the resources. I may read further just to see what all Catholics believe, as I'm not one. It's funny, years ago before I joined the first Christian forums, I never knew what Calvinists or Arminians believes either. I learn a lot on sites like this.

Actually we don't know whether it was written by James or not, only that it is unlikely. However the church still considers it authoiritative based on the fact that is was accepted as a recording of the already established oral traditions. When the apostles wrote the Gospels, they went around and asked people who knew Christ for their accounts of him. That is why we have stories about Christ which the apostles never witnessed. It is the same with the protoevangelicon. Sure we might not know who wrote it (just like Hebrews), we can still call it reliable as the early church did.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Believe what you want. But to understand Revelation, you need to know Old Testament prophecies. Its all there if you seek out truth.

You mean the old testament prophesies about the coming of Christ through a Virgin?

 

[☦Marius☦]

Interesting, but so far what I've read says 145 ad to 200 ad. And that it was not written by James the brother of Jesus. Most early church fathers claimed it was not true, therefore, not canonical. Another name for it was about the "infancy" of Jesus which if it is the same as I have, was pure fantasy.

Thanks for the resources. I may read further just to see what all Catholics believe, as I'm not one. It's funny, years ago before I joined the first Christian forums, I never knew what Calvinists or Arminians believes either. I learn a lot on sites like this.

Clear Thinking about the Protoevangelium of James

 

[chilehed]

"In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace."

Does the Catholic Church believe her free assent was not required? Maybe we should start a #metoo movement for Mary.

That's a different topic. I'm talking about the claim that Catholic teaching is that she had to be sinless in order to give birth to Christ. That is NOT a teaching of the Church, and no one has been able to provide any evidence that it is.

 

[Invalidusername]

The real focus we should be talking about is are you born of God with a sinless spirit too?

No. We are all sinners because we inherited it.

 

[Phil 1:21]

That's a different topic. I'm talking about the claim that Catholic teaching is that she had to be sinless in order to give birth to Christ. That is NOT a teaching of the Church, and no one has been able to provide any evidence that it is.

Is "give birth to Christ" not part of "her vocation"?

 

[chilehed]

Is "give birth to Christ" not part of "her vocation"?

You're confusing subjects. The ability to freely assent to her vocation is not the same as the ability to give birth to Christ.

How about you study Ineffabilis Deus very carefully, find where it says that Mary had to be sinless in order to give birth to Jesus, and tell me where it is.

 

[Micah888]

You must also think that in Order for Christ to keep the law and also obey his mother, which is part of the law- she could not have ever asked him to do something sinful, which in itself would be an argument for her latter sinlessness.

We need to be perfectly clear about something. Sinlessness as defined in "immaculate conception" is not the same as practical righteousness and holiness. There is no question that Mary and Joseph were very righteous, and blameless as far as the Law was concerned. But since they were human like us (and unlike Christ) they could not escape the inherent sin nature inherited from Adam (Rom 5:12).

What the RCC teaches is that Mary was an exception to all of humanity, and that is not what Scripture says. Mary herself acknowledged that she needed a Savior.

 

[Micah888]

You don't know what you're talking about.

Well then you show us FROM SCRIPTURE that Mary was totally unlike any other human being.

 

[Phil 1:21]

You're confusing subjects. The ability to freely assent to her vocation is not the same as the ability to give birth to Christ.

So, in your opinion, the Catholic church doesn't consider Mary's consent a prerequisite to becoming pregnant and ultimately giving birth?