Peanut Gallery: The Immaculate conception of Mary!

bbbbbbb said:

I think I get it now. Mary was full of grace (God's favor) but those mentioned in John 1:16 don't receive God's favor, although it is stated to be grace (the same Greek word used in Luke 1:28). So us poor mortals only are filled with grace (charis) but Mary is filled with favor (charis).

Click to expand...

Well, no where else in the Bible does it state someone is blessed and full of grace... so, I think that should also mean something. To me, it means that Mary was shown special grace because she is the mother of Jesus.

BreadAlone said:

You think that it is that recent? It seems to me that people, for example, in South America are also ill-informed, ESPECIALLY when it comes to their Marian and Saint Theology (not that Catholics in other places don't do this also, but it's more prevelant there.)

Click to expand...

True. Many of them in South America are uneducated too. Every country has its unique problems.

Some peoples mix local pagan junk with their Catholicism - like vodoo in Cuba. Of course, the Church obviously does not sanction this, but its hard to prevent in some backwater areas. We can't put spy-cams in every hut, and we don't burn people at the stake any more.

In other areas, like Europe, the problem is plain old apathy, or secular humanism, that causes people to fall away. We have some of that here in the USA too, and that problem is not exclusive to Catholics.

Oh, its all a big old mess. If only the Church wasn't divided up. It would be easier to tackle these other problems if we werent so busy arguing with each other.

Why don't you become Catholic and start helping out. LOL

.

I assume you've read these already?
http://www.catholic.com/library/mary_saints.asp

BreadAlone said:

Actually, the only time "grace" and "blessed" are used together in the Scriptures, is in the following verse:

Psalm 45
2 You are the most excellent of men
and your lips have been anointed with grace,
since God has blessed you forever.

Now, some instances of Grace and Blessed:

John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.


John 1:16
From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.

Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.

Romans 1:5
Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

John 12:13
They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna! " "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Blessed is the King of Israel!"

Matthew 5:11
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

Matthew 25:34
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

The common theme here seems to be that CHRIST is blessed and full of Grace, and that through Him this is passed on to us..nothing about Mary..hmm..

Now as to Mary..well, if you read her song, it says a lot about herself. The only thing that SHE says about herself is that her sould magnifies the Lord. The rest of her song glorifies God. So, rather than Catholics bowing down to Mary and asking a dead woman to pray for them, perhaps they should give their glory to the One that Mary gives glory to: The Son of Mary; God Almighty; Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

Yes, because of God's fullness, we receive grace. But where in the Bible does it single out ONE individual telling them, Blessed are you, the mother of my Lord (stated by Elizabeth) and then later on Mary even says, that generations will call me blessed. Let me get the Scriptures to help illustrate what I mean.

Luke 1:26-38 26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren. 37 Because no word shall be impossible with God. 38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Click to expand...

How many of us had an angel come to us and say "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women. And again in verse 30, the "angel" confirms "And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God."

Next Scripture:

39 And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda. 40 And she entered into the house of Zachary and saluted Elizabeth. 41 And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord. 46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. 51 He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away. 54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy. 55 As he spoke to our fathers: to Abraham and to his seed for ever. 56 And Mary abode with her about three months. And she returned to her own house.

Click to expand...

Elizabeth confirms what the angel Gabriel had told Mary.

No other human in the Bible is personally called blessed and full of grace by an angel.

BreadAlone said:

But it begs the question "why?" There is just no reason for it; to the contrary, it's contrary to the Scriptures which say "there are none who do good, NOT EVEN ONE."

Click to expand...

Then that would apply to Jesus as a man? I believe that Jesus was sinless and came from a sinless vessel.

Then I guess the "Co" part is a little misleading, no? And if not, why do so many Catholics give the glory to Mary, rather than God?

Click to expand...

Co is another expression for helping. In other words, when we share the gospel and are apart of leading someone to Christ, are we helping a person to learn about Christ and the gift of Salvation? And thus, the Holy Spirit convicts the heart? Are not we helping spread the gospel? That is what the "Co" means... we have no power to save, only Jesus can save, but we help bring people to Christ when we share the gospel of Christ and then move out of the way so the Holy Spirit can stir the heart.

That's a nice way to look at it, but it's not the majority of Catholicism's way of looking at it.

Click to expand...

Well, I can't talk for other Catholics, I can only share my own understanding.

So that would make her..Jesus' wife..!? Oh wait..

Click to expand...

How would that make her Jesus' wife. That comment doesn't make sense to me at all. Please explain it.

No more so than his brothers and sisters.

Click to expand...

Well, here is something that I do know for sure, Jesus did not have brothers and sisters. Back then, there were no words for cousins, nephews or neices... back then, your cousins were your brothers and sisters. Also, Joseph is to believed to have had children from his first marriage and why? Because the Bible does say, Joseph was a widower before marrying Mary.

Do you realize that even Luther believed in Mary's Immaculate Conception? Maybe I should go look up his work on this... maybe his own words might be helpful to you. Do you also realize that it has only been the last 200 years that some of Christianity has rejected the dogma of Mary's Immaculate conception? That says volumes to me. How can the Church(es) be wrong and then the new modern churches be right? Sorry, I'll stick with history on this one.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding rude or anything, D'Ann..I just get impatient sometimes with you RC's

Click to expand...

Why are you impatient? Are not we here to discuss and share and hopefully find a deeper understanding of what we believe?

It's okay though to be impatient. Your comments have been fine with me thus far too.

Bread Alone,

You did bring up a valid point about if Mary was sinless, would that mean her parents would be sinless and on and on...

This is a logical conclusion and I do understand why non-Catholics ask this question.

My husband wrote the below passage on this and I think he explains the Dogma of Mary Immaculate Conception much better than I could.

I believe that we all as Christians have presuppositions. I believe that maybe your presuppositions might be some of these:

1. Original Sin exists and keeps us separated from God unless, and until, it is somehow removed from our very nature.

2. all humans inherit Original Sin from their parents and will, likewise, pass this along to their children due to Adam and Eve sinfulness in the Garden of Eden.

3. The orthodox view of “Original Sin” is that it is distinct from “actual sin” in that the doctrine speaks to Original Sin’s damaging effects on our nature and not to the personal guilt for the sins we have actually committed. Original Sin is often confused with Original “Guilt.” Simply stated, we are not guilty of Original Sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of Original Sin because they were the ones who originally sinned.

4. What is "Original Sin"? Please consider that when God created Adam and Eve He did so without our "original" parents having any sort of sin within them naturally. They were created as God intended for us to be: free of sin and filled with the light of grace. After all, it wasn’t until AFTER their first sin that they became fallen. This is a theological point that all Christians agree on.

5. When Adam and Eve, due to their own willful actions, sinned against God everything changed for themselves - and for us. Instead of having a nature filled with grace, their disobedience caused their nature to be changed into one that lacked the fullness of grace. In other words, rather than having a nature that was filled with the LIGHT of God's grace, they "threw away" and rejected God's Will for them (God Willed them to be as He created them: filled with grace) and therefore the grace – the LIGHT that filled their souls – left them. What remained was a nature that was fallen and incomplete.

6. Instead of God's Light filling their nature entirely (as He originally created them) a DARK SPOT filled the void and entered their nature. This "dark spot" – lacking God's Light – meant that their wills were weakened, their intellect was darkened, their appetites were disordered, and they were, therefore inclined to sin. In Latin the word for "dark spot" is macula.

7. Therefore, in a stark contrast, a soul that overflows with the fullness of God's Light – as God originally created Adam and Eve – a soul without a dark spot – is called immaculate.

8. Since our original parents, Adam and Eve, became the original sinners, and hence were no longer immaculate, they were the first humans to have acquired a fallen nature due to sin and it is this fallen nature that we all inherit. Thus it is called "Original Sin."

9. Therefore we are not "guilty" of original sin (in the same sense that we are guilty of actual sin when we commit it), rather we inherit it as part of our nature. It is precisely because we have a fallen nature (with all of its attributes such as our disordered appetites) that we commit actual sin. And those sins – the actual sins – are sins that we are personally guilty of.

10. Again, these are presuppositions held in common by a great majority of Christians on both sides of the Catholic/Protestant divide.

So now this begs a very serious question. We, as Christians, presuppose that the "macula" – the dark spot that inclines us to commit sin – is something that keeps us separate from God.

How, then, can we restore our nature so that God's Light (grace) fills our nature and thus enables us to maintain a RIGHT relationship with God?

The answer, simply, is that there is NOTHING that WE can do. We are incapable of restoring our own nature.

But, with God, nothing is impossible.

While WE cannot restore our fallen nature and fill the void with Light - God CAN. And God DOES. He does this through the saving work of Christ on the Cross. This is also a commonly held Christian presupposition. Thus, once we are joined to Christ through faith we are then born again into His Life of Grace. When we die-to-self and commit our lives to Christ, the Holy Spirit acts to remove Original Sin (by indwelling us with God’s Light and Grace) so that we can forever become children of God and part of the New Covenantal family.

Even though Original Sin has been removed from the nature of Christians (i.e., those joined by grace to the New Covenant) we are still inclined to sin because we still suffer from the effects of Original Sin. The theological concept which explains this mysterious phenomenon is called "concupiscence." The lingering effects of Original Sin can damage us by continuing to incline us to sin even after the indwelling of God’s Grace has eliminated the macula within us. This can happen for the simple reason that, while our having joined the New Covenant through grace DOES mend our state and our natural standing with God, it DOES NOT erase our past. Therefore, due to the nature we inherited at birth (from Adam), we came to have personal inherent “knowledge” of sin even though we, as regenerated Christians, no longer remain fallen. Even though our “right” relationship with God is repaired when we are born again into the New Covenant we still, in a very mysterious sense, “know” sin and are therefore inclined toward its illicit pleasure.

What is meant by the term “born again”? Many Christians, including Catholics, believe that this “regeneration” happens during Baptism, while other Christians believe that the term “born again” refers exclusively to when a person first comes to faith, especially within the context of a charismatic epiphany. Regardless of which camp one belongs to, all Christians agree that there is a moment when a Christian is born again into the New Covenant. And while Original Sin itself is vanquished forever for those who are born again, concupiscence and its knowledge of sin, and its inclination toward sin, rolls merrily along.

All Christians, at least those who adhere to the doctrine of Original Sin, agree that we are saved from our fallen nature by God alone and not through anything that a human can do for themselves. Most Christians, especially those who do not deny the existence Original Sin, reject the beliefs of Pelagians (an early heretical sect) who taught that we humans can somehow affect our own salvation through our own efforts outside of God's grace.

And that brings us back to the original question at hand. Since it is the intervening work, and free gift, of the Holy Spirit whereby we are restored to Light and "saved" from the dark spot – the macula – of our fallen nature, we can see that it would not be necessary for Mary's parents to have been likewise "immaculate" themselves at the time of Mary's conception.

And just as each of us receive this gift of divine intervention regardless of the state our parents happen to be in (and therefore a pagan, for example, can become an adopted son or daughter of the New Covenant even if their parents remain unregenerated pagans), so too Mary’s reception of her gift was not dependent on the state of her parents.

It is certainly true that many Christians, both Catholic and some Protestants alike, believe that their children can become part of the Covenantal Family of God based on the faith of the parents (which is why many Christians baptize infants and why non-Christian Jews circumcise baby boys at the age of eight days), but the thing to be grasped here is that it is NOT us who repair our own fallen states, but rather it is the work of the Holy Spirit – not ourselves – who affects this restoration. This restorative intervention by the Holy Spirit applies to all humans whether the Immaculate Conception really happened or not. Thus, to answer Objection #1, Mary's parents did not have to be immaculate for her to have been made immaculate via the actions of the Spirit.

Rather, as Catholicism teaches, Mary was "saved" from inheriting a "dark spot" from her parents by the miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit at her conception in anticipation of her unique role in Salvation History as the "flesh-giver" and bearer of Incarnate Redeemer of the world.

So just as all saved Christians receive the gift of the intervention of the Holy Spirit with regard to the "cure" for their former fallen-ness, so too Mary received this gift.

The main difference between Mary and the rest of us Christians, according to Catholicism, is that her gift was received at her conception in anticipation of the New Covenant and her special role as mother of the Incarnate Redeemer, whereas the rest of us receive this gift through joining the New Covenant family as made possible by the saving work (on the Cross) of Our Redeemer – Jesus Christ.

This last point is, of course, where Christians differ in opinion. Protestants do not agree that Mary was saved from Original Sin at her conception in anticipation of her role as Flesh-giver of the Incarnate Savior.

Now...all this being said...

Let's take this topic to the next logical step. The next question from many people is this:

Objection #2 - If the Holy Spirit can intervene to prevent someone from inheriting this dark spot and a fallen nature why, then, would the Spirit choose to intervene at Mary's conception instead of at Christ's conception? If the Spirit had intervened at Christ’s conception, then Mary could have had a fallen nature and thus the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception would be rendered moot.


Given that all Christians agree with regard to how one inherits one’s parents’ fallen nature, and given that Christ did not have a fallen nature even though He was fully human (as well as being fully divine) – having acquired human flesh and a human nature from Mary – then it naturally follows that an intervention from the Holy Spirit would have had to occur somewhere along the line or else Jesus would have inherited a fallen nature.

Why, then, did this intervention happen prior to Jesus' conception (according to Catholicism) instead of when He was conceived in Mary's womb?

That is a good and fair question.

Let's first of all note that God chose to redeem the world through the Incarnation of His Son. God could have chosen any number of ways to restore our fallen nature without necessarily sending His Son down to us and taking on flesh. He could have Redeemed Adam and Eve right then and there in the Garden of Eden in the blink of an eye (as easily as flipping a light switch - zap) and then we, as inheritors of their nature, would have inherited a nature free of any dark spots.



But God didn't do that. Instead, He chose to en-flesh His Son to affect our salvation.

For why else would He take on human flesh and a human nature if not to Redeem us by it? Thus Christ is THE REDEMER and SAVIOR. This is the premier and ultimate Christian presupposition regarding the Incarnation. Prayerfully think about that.

Just as Christian presuppositions with regard to Original Sin provided the solution to answer the first objection, other Christian presuppositions with regard to the Incarnation can answer the second objection.

And so, the very Flesh that Redeems us – the Flesh of Christ – is truly and fully human. And where did Jesus receive that Flesh? He received it from His mother – Mary.

Therefore, if He inherited His flesh and human nature from a human mother and IF His nature is NOT fallen then it raises some considerations of its own.

How so? If we humans inherit the nature of our parents, and if Christ did not have a fallen nature, then one of two possible scenarios presents itself:

EITHER

Scenario #1 is that Christ – our Redeemer and Savior – inherited from His mother a pristine human nature which was not fallen. Her nature was “saved” from fallen-ness prior to Christ’s conception. In this scenario it is Mary who is the object of prior salvation. This is the Catholic view.

OR

Scenario #2 is that Mary was fallen at the time of Christ’s conception, but that Christ was prevented from (i.e., "saved" from) inheriting her fallen-ness through the intervention of the Holy Spirit. In this scenario it is Christ who is the object of the immediate saving work of the Spirit. This is the Protestant view even if few Protestants ever think of it in these terms.

In both scenarios we have the necessity of a “saving” intervention by the Holy Spirit.

But, in scenario #2 we can see a great difficulty arising. Why? Because for Jesus to have been "saved" from inheriting Original Sin that means that Our Savior would have needed a savior AND Our Redeemer would have needed a redeemer and THAT is something that Scripture never points to and that, in reality, is an utter impossibility. For Christ Himself is "THE SAVIOR" and He is "THE REDEEMER".

Here the hard-core Fundamentalist who requires an explicit Biblical mandate is at total loss when asked to supply the slightest Scriptural reference to Jesus needing to be saved or redeemed at any time during the Incarnated earthly life of the Messiah.

Therefore, the only logical and consistent possibility is that Jesus inherited a human nature that existed exactly as Adam and Eve's nature once existed – filled with the light of Grace – devoid of a dark spot – a nature that was made IMMACULATE through the miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Mary has a Savior even though Jesus does not since He is the Savior.

The Christian presuppositions that naturally flow out of the doctrines of Original Sin and the Incarnation provide the foundational principles that can bridge the gap between those who reject the possibility of the Immaculate Conception and those who accept it as an orthodox Eternal Truth that is implicitly supported by Scripture.

And now, viewed from this perspective, we can see why it was that the Angel Gabriel said to Mary at the Annunciation, "Hail, Full of Grace" for she was, indeed, filled with God's Light. And it was this fullness of a grace-filled human nature that Jesus – our Redeemer and Savior – inherited from His mother.

http://www.newman99.com/9.html

I have his permission to fully post what he wrote.

Luther indeed was quite devoted to Our Lady, and retained most of the traditional Marian doctrines which were held then and now by the Catholic Church. This is often not well-documented in Protestant biographies of Luther and histories of the 16th century, yet it is undeniably true. It seems to be a natural human tendency for latter-day followers to project back onto the founder of a movement their own prevailing viewpoints.
Since Lutheranism today does not possess a very robust Mariology, it is usually assumed that Luther himself had similar opinions. We shall see, upon consulting the primary sources (i.e., Luther’s own writings), that the historical facts are very different. We shall consider, in turn, Luther’s position on the various aspects of Marian doctrine.
Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):

Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him… "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).
He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Ibid.)
God says…"Mary’s Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of God. (Ibid.).
God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary’s Son, and that Mary is God’s mother…She is the true mother of God and bearer of God…Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs…just as your son is not two sons…even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone. (On the Councils and the Church, 1539).
​

Probably the most astonishing Marian belief of Luther is his acceptance of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, which wasn’t even definitively proclaimed as dogma by the Catholic Church until 1854. Concerning this question there is some dispute, over the technical aspects of medieval theories of conception and the soul, and whether or not Luther later changed his mind. Even some eminent Lutheran scholars, however, such as Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, maintain his unswerving acceptance of the doctrine. Luther’s words follow:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).
She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).
​

Later references to the Immaculate Conception appear in his House sermon for Christmas (1533) and Against the Papacy of Rome (1545). In later life (he died in 1546), Luther did not believe that this doctrine should be imposed on all believers, since he felt that the Bible didn’t explicitly and formally teach it. Such a view is consistent with his notion of sola Scriptura and is similar to his opinion on the bodily Assumption of the Virgin, which he never denied—although he was highly critical of what he felt were excesses in the celebration of this Feast. In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time he preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith…It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.
​

Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary and expressed this on innumerable occasions with the most effusive language:

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).
[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ…She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).
No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).
​

Click to expand...

Luther may have believed that Mary was sinless but then He did come out from the ones that started that teaching. But what Luther believed does not make it truth. For there is non that does Good. There is not one man other than Christ because His father was not human but God that is not bound by sin. It is the consequence of what happened in the fall of Adam..

MamaZ said:

Luther may have believed that Mary was sinless but then He did come out from the ones that started that teaching. But what Luther believed does not make it truth. For there is non that does Good. There is not one man other than Christ because His father was not human but God that is not bound by sin. It is the consequence of what happened in the fall of Adam..

Click to expand...

Luther accepted the Marian view of his day (only Mary the Mother of God and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary were dogmas then). But I think some here at missing an important distinction.

In classic Protestantism, a doctrine is a teaching AFFIRMED by Scripture + Tradition (not simply not a contradiction of). Heresy is something CONFLICTING with Scripture + Tradition. Now, for all the Protestant leaders, the Marion teachings of the 16th century were PERMITTED because they were Traditional but they were not doctrine because they were not Scriptural. They were what classic Protestantism calls "pious opinion" = a permitted view (not heresy) but not a certain view (doctrine). In Lutheranism and Anglicanism (the two oldest and largest Protestant groups), one can still find those who embrace those 16th century Marion views AS PIOUS OPINION (including my Lutheran pastor). In Calvinism, these additional Marian views have almost entirely dropped out (as far as I can tell) but they are NOT officially regarded as heresy.


Now, back to the issue of whether it can be clearly substantiated that Mary specifically was CONCIEVED "immaculately" as the highest level of certainty and importance - the whole point of the RCC. The discussion is NOT if it's possible (it's possible Mary was 15 feet tall, had pink hair and lived almost entirely on fish tacos - but possible does not equal dogma), NOT if such CONTRADICTS Scripture (that Mary had 100 daughters doesn't CONTADICT Scripture, that Jesus visited the Americas and founded His Church HERE doesn't CONTRADICT Scripture but that doesn't make those things dogma). A teaching of the highest level of certainty and importance requires the highest level of substantiation.





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

D'Ann said:

Well, no where else in the Bible does it state someone is blessed and full of grace... so, I think that should also mean something. To me, it means that Mary was shown special grace because she is the mother of Jesus.

Click to expand...

MAYBE....

But Debbie, I'm not following how that specifically substantiates to the highest and greatest degree that THEREFORE Mary (specifically) was CONCEIVED "immaculately" which is the dogma being discussed.








.

D'Ann said:

But it begs the question "why?" There is just no reason for it; to the contrary, it's contrary to the Scriptures which say "there are none who do good, NOT EVEN ONE."

Click to expand...

Then that would apply to Jesus as a man? I believe that Jesus was sinless and came from a sinless vessel.

Click to expand...

1. A general principle (such as "no one does good, not even one") generally applies unless there is a specific exception stated. Read Hebrews 4:15. We know that Jesus is an exception to the rule because God tells us in Hebrews 4:15. BTW, we also know because Jesus tells us that no one is good but God alone, and we know Jesus is divine because God told us in John 20:28 and 1 John 5:20, etc.

2. To argue that because ONE exception exists, therefore MARY is an exception is a leap too big to even consider, as I'm sure you'll agree. We are NOT discussing whether it's POSSIBLE that Mary specifically was conceived "immaculately" ("with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE" we are taught), but whether it's true.

3. Jesus being sinless has NOTHING to do with Mary being sinless; no more than Mary being sinless has anything to do with Mary's mother and grandmother and greatgrandmother and greatgreatgreatgrandmother all the way back to Eve been perpetually sinless. Even classic Catholicism rejects that argument.


4. Friend, you are welcomed and invited to "believe" whatever you want. Just as Mormons are. But the issue before us is not if someone believes something, the issue is if it's dogmatically True.

D'Ann said:

Well, here is something that I do know for sure, Jesus did not have brothers and sisters. Back then, there were no words for cousins, nephews or neices... back then, your cousins were your brothers and sisters. Also, Joseph is to believed to have had children from his first marriage and why? Because the Bible does say, Joseph was a widower before marrying Mary.

Click to expand...

1. Moot to our discussion about Mary's conception, but, my friend, we don't know "for sure" from Scripture that Jesus had no siblings. You are correct that the word for "brothers" and "sisters" were too generic to specifically and dogmatically insist that He did - but that's just one reason why no Protestant denomination known to me has a Dogma of "Jesus Has Sibs." But, by your own admission, the words also do not substantiate that they were cousins, nephews or nieces. You can't have it both ways. Either the words are too generic to dogmatically say if they were siblings or not - or they ARE specifically enough that we can state to the highest level of certainty. All Protestant denominations take the first view (not specific enough to dogmatically state) while you take the second position - which, IMHO, undermines your defense that they were not siblings.

2. Scripture does not state that Joseph was a widower before marrying Our Blessed Lady, as you well know.

D'Ann said:

Do you realize that even Luther believed in Mary's Immaculate Conception?

Click to expand...

We all know....

Neither Luther or Lutherans teach that such is dogam (or even doctrine). The RCC didn't either in Luther's day. In classic Protestantism, there is "pious opinion" - a view upheld by ancient, universal/catholic Tradition but not affirmed by Scripture. Lutherans are welcomed to embrace such (as does my Lutheran pastor - who personally embraces all the RCC Marion dogmas) or not (I tend to not take a stand on any of them).

As you well know, Lutherans do not regard Luther as the equal of your Pope - infallible, the vicar of Jesus, whoever hears him hears God, absolutely essential for salvation to be obedient to, etc.). He was a fallible, accountable pastor, author and Bible student (not a particularly good theologian). He put his pants on one leg at a time, lol. Sure, you may quote Luther just as you might St. Augustine or John McCain or Abe Lincoln or me, but such carries no assurance of infallibility or even special authority. The Authority is Scripture and under that Tradition, not Luther.

I'll stick with history on this one.

Click to expand...

In all due respect, I think you are sticking with your specific, singular denomination - not history. You don't stick with history on Gnosticism or Arianism - all MUCH older views still existing to this day, so I doubt that "history" has anything to do with it. And we all know when this was declared to be dogma, we all know that there is only ONE denomination on the planet that embraces this dogma and it was first even mentioned amazingly late. No one denies that the view did arise (surprisingly late) and that it came to be embraced solely withing one singular, particular denomination, but that's not the issue before us. The issue we are discussing is dogma: is it TRUE.



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah







.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

...I'm not following how that specifically substantiates to the highest and greatest degree that THEREFORE Mary (specifically) was CONCEIVED "immaculately"...

Click to expand...

If that were the only scripture supporting it, it would indeed be difficult. But Old Testament typology comes into play too.

For example, the Old Eve was created sinless, as was the Old Adam, but they fell into sin. Conversely, the New Adam was created sinless and remained faithful, and the missing piece from that typological puzzle is that the New Eve too was created sinless and remained faithful. This completes the picture.

Also, the Old Ark was built with pure preciuous metals and could not be touched except by whomever God said could touch it. Mary is the New Ark, (I won't go in to explaining that here. You can read about it here: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea5.asp )

There's also the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44: "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut." Mary had become the dwelling place of the Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, and: "This gate shall remain shut."

So, when we see these OT fulfillments, and THEN add Luke 1:28 to that, and then add the tradition of the ECFs as icing on the cake, we have a much broader basis for the teaching.

katholikos said:

If that were the only scripture supporting it, it would indeed be difficult. But Old Testament typology comes into play too.

Click to expand...

I think you are, by circumvent, admitting that it's just not there....
You must turn, thus, to invisible words that you feel are IMPLIED but you admit aren't there. Friend, ANYONE can claim that ANYTHING is "implied" by some "type" or by invisible words between the lines only self can "see." I hope you realize that such is, by no means, substantiation - unless you'll allow the Mormon to do the same to "prove" all their unque dogmas.

the missing piece from that typological puzzle is that the New Eve too was created sinless and remained faithful.

Click to expand...

That's right, it's MISSING.

More of your admission that it's just not there....

Also, the Old Ark was built with pure preciuous metals and could not be touched except by whomever God said could touch it. Mary is the New Ark

Click to expand...

Scripture says NO SUCH THING....

LOTS of people touched Mary....

There's also the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44: "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut." Mary had become the dwelling place of the Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, and: "This gate shall remain shut."

Click to expand...

Mary was a person, not a gate.

This verse refers to a specific gate in Jerusalem, there's nothing here about any person. The only one in Scripture ever compared to a Gate is Jesus.

So, when we see these OT fulfillments, and THEN add Luke 1:28 to that, and then add the tradition of the ECFs as icing on the cake, we have a much broader basis for the teaching.

Click to expand...

The ECF didn't teach this, which is one reason why the EO and OO don't teach this.





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

You are reading things too simplistcally, and not trying to exegete their deeper ontological meaning.

It would be as if someone said: "I am washed in the blood of Christ", and I repled: "No way. I don't see any blood on you". That is the same type of literal dismissal you are giving to the scriptures I have presented.

katholikos said:

You are reading things too simplistcally, and not trying to exegete their deeper ontological meaning.

Click to expand...

No. I'm practicing exegesis, not eisegesis.

Yes, I'm not accepting that one's thoughts imputed into a text are equal or above the words actually there - just as the RCC does not permit this when the LDS does it or even if Protestants do it. What's good for the goose....

And I'm noting that "What I myself think this MEANS" is not the same as "This is what the text says." The Mormon will insist (by using typing and "deeper meaning") that "other sheep" = Americans, and that many of His statements refer to the LDS. They will admit the text doesn't actually SAY these things but if one looks at the meaning, the deeper meaning, and if one applies types - then it's "there" just not in words any other than itself can "see." What's good for the goose...... and vise versa. One's INTERPRETATION of a text is not the same as the text. I think it was Jeremiah who noted God particulare distain for the one who says "God says" when God said no such thing.







.

Josiah said:

The ECF didn't teach this, which is one reason why the EO and OO don't teach this.

Click to expand...

If your saying that the OO and EO do not accept Ezekiel 44 as refering to Mary...you couldnt be more wrong, because they do indeed.

Here is one example out of a dozen plus I can provide...


“When he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looked towards the east, it was shut. Then the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it, because the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it, therefore it shall be shut.
It is for the prince; the prince himself shall sit in it...” (Ezk. 44: 1-3).

This sealed eastern gate is a figure of St. Mary's perpetual virginity. For the Lord alone entered her womb, and this gate was never opened to another; its seals were not broken.

In this effect the Coptic Church sings the following hymn:
“Ezekiel witnessed and told us: I have seen an eastern gate. The Lord, the Saviour entered it, and it remains shut as it was before”.

(2) One of the titles given to the Virgin Mary in the
Byzantine rite is: “Hail O unique gate, through which only the Word passed.” (St. Marks Coptic Church, LA)



pax

katholikos said:

You are reading things too simplistcally, and not trying to exegete their deeper ontological meaning.

It would be as if someone said: "I am washed in the blood of Christ", and I repled: "No way. I don't see any blood on you". That is the same type of literal dismissal you are giving to the scriptures I have presented.

Click to expand...

no, it's not. Every typology you offered is flawed.

Eve... wife of Adam.

new Adam, Christ... new eve, Mother of Adam? flawed typology.

ark... containted staff, contained law, contained manna. Carried by levites. Untouchable.

Mary, touchable. (how you can extrapolate that meant only sexually, is beyond me... if it's a true typology, the two must be interchangable in meaning.) Levites didn't have anything to do with her either.

Ezekiel Gateway.

Then the man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me, "This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it. 3 The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway to eat in the presence of the LORD. He is to enter by way of the portico of the gateway and go out the same way."

in the typology of Mary, who is the man who brought Exeziel to consider the gate? No typology exists for a prophet examining Mary's "gate." Add to the fact that if the Gate is Mary's womb, it seems strange that the prince would sit inside the gateway to eat in the presence of the Lord, don't you think? you also see the Prince coming and going from the gateway... something you don't see in the marian example.

extremely flawed. Discarding whatever part of the OT typology that doesn't fit, keeping only what "proves" your point.