The Immaculate Conception?

[polishbeast]

You cant pray to Mary. The scriptures are clear you can only pray to Jesus or through Jesus to the father. Theres no scriptures in the bible that gives Mary any special authority. This is herecy. Of course most Catholic teachings are anti-scriptural.

Where in the Bible does it say you can ONLY pray to Jesus or the Father through Jesus?

Also we look at tradition to tell us we can pray to Mary and the Saints.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

If a child were to die without first being baptized, would they be able to go to Heaven?

If you're asking Orthodox - yes.

Mary

 

[MrPolo]

To bring them into the Church, the Body of Christ, so they may receive all the grace that only the Church can give. They need to grow in Christ just like adults.

I'm not sure exactly why you're asking, but just because an infant has not personally sinned doesn't mean that he doesn't need all that Christ has provided for us, through the Church. Why should children be made to wait, when the "medicine of immortality" is available?

Does that get to why you're asking, or is there something else?

Mary

I'm asking if the baby receives some sanctification that it did not have prior to the baptism in Orthodox theology.

 

[MrPolo]

You cant pray to Mary. The scriptures are clear you can only pray to Jesus or through Jesus to the father.

When it is said Catholics "pray to" Mary or the saints, it means to ask them for intercession. Asking other members of the Body of Christ for intercession is quite Biblical.

Romans 15:30 I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf.

2 Thess 3:1 Finally, brothers, pray for us.​

 

[Mary of Bethany]

I'm asking if the baby receives some sanctification that it did not have prior to the baptism in Orthodox theology.

All sacraments bring an experience of grace - God's energies - to us, so yes, absolutely.

I thought this article addressed the questions well, though it is addressed to protestant objections:

Infant Baptism: What the Church Believes | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

Is infant baptism biblical?

Yes, it is. While there is no description of an individual infant being baptized, the Bible describes five separate household baptisms:
• The Household of Cornelius, Acts 11:13–14: “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.”
• The Household of Lydia, Acts 16:15: “And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ So she persuaded us.”
• The Philippian Jailor’s Household, Acts 16:33: “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.”
• The Household of Crispus, Acts 18:8: “Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”
• The Household of Stephanas, 1 Corinthians 1:16: “Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.”
Some have argued that while the Bible may say ‘household’ or ‘family’ this does not have to include children. Maybe those households did not include children. While this may be the case, it is hard to imagine that at least one of these households did not include children. And given the fact that we have five explicit references to a whole household being baptized, we have to assume that many, many more such households were baptized. Surely some of them included children.
The word ‘household’ for any Israelite of the day included everybody in the household, children included. We must remember that a household always included children throughout the Scriptures. Every time God established or spoke about His covenant with the House of Israel, it included the whole of Israel: men, women, and children. Noah’s whole ‘household’ was taken into the ark with him (Genesis 7:1); Abraham had his whole household circumcised (Genesis 17:23), and specifically his son Isaac when he was eight days old (Genesis 21:4); the whole household of every family was taken out of Egypt, and God’s institution of the Passover specifically included the children (Exodus 12:24–28). If the Apostles had taught that children were to be excluded from full inclusion in the covenant, such an innovation would not have fit the prophetic covenants which preceded the fulfilled covenant enacted through Christ.
The pattern of the Old Testament covenants formed the framework for the apostolic understanding of the true covenant of Christ, and those covenants included children. They were covenants which were made with a nation, in which every household participated. This is what is expressed in the household baptisms of the New Testament. Even when an individual was baptized, this baptism placed him in a larger body. Individual adult baptisms occurred, but there were no individual covenants.
The Bible teaches us that under the Old Covenant, every male child was circumcised on the eighth day after birth. With his circumcision, the child became a full and complete member of the covenant and could eat of the Passover sacrifice. Baptism in Christ absorbed and fulfilled this rite, as it absorbed all initiation and cleansing rites of the day. Circumcision, we know from the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:5; Acts 21:21), was no longer necessary for the Gentile convert or his children. Nowhere in the Bible is it hinted that while absorbing the rite of circumcision, baptism would suddenly and without precedent exclude children. Jesus did not have a problem with children gaining full inclusion to the covenant: He Himself was circumcised as an infant (Luke 2:21), like John the Forerunner (Luke 1:59).
Here we need to introduce a statement by Jesus Himself on the subject of children and faith. In Luke 18, some children are brought to Him to receive a blessing. His disciples try to interfere. But Jesus immediately rebukes them, saying, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16). A sentimental reading of this passage tells us that Jesus loves children, and that we should not stop them from trying to ask questions about Him or wanting to pray to Him, or tell them that they are too young to get to know Him. While this is true, no one the Lord is talking to thought differently. These were people, we have to remember, who circumcised their children, included them in the Passover rituals and taught them from a young age about God, Israel and the Prophetic writings. The Jews were fanatical, by our modern standards, in their desire to raise their children in the faith. This is not a Hallmark moment in the Gospels.
Jesus is in fact including children in His Kingdom. And His inclusion of children in the Kingdom includes them in the covenant He establishes in His Name. There is no partial involvement in the Kingdom of Heaven, just as there is no partial inclusion in the covenant. We are either members or not. Jesus is saying that children are in, and there is to be no argument about it. There is absolutely no room here to make an argument that children must wait until some magical age before they too can be included with full rights into the Church and at the altar table.
Jesus was once an infant Himself. And Jesus was never separate from God, even in His mother’s womb. The heretical Nestorians claimed that Jesus’ divinity only descended upon Him at baptism. But the Orthodox Church has always declared that He united God and man from the moment of His conception, and the Orthodox believe that His Kingdom belongs to children. Not only because the covenant is with the whole household; not only because a distinction of age was never introduced into the practice of baptism; not only because such a distinction would not have matched the Old Testament covenants which served as the prophetic model for the New Covenant; but because Christ Himself became incarnate as an infant child. In Him all ages, like all humanity, are sewn into the perfect union expressed in the eucharistic supper of the New Israel, which we join only through baptism. Christ makes both childhood and adulthood fully capable of expressing and participating in the Kingdom of Heaven.
But children don’t understand the faith!

The assumption behind this objection to infant baptism, one which did not exist in the early Church or in the centuries which followed, is that faith is a product of reason. That to truly believe, our minds must be capable of understanding why we believe, or at least able to provide intellectual consent. For the adult convert to the Orthodox Church, intellectual consent is crucial. Baptism is not magic. It is a voluntary act of submission to God, a consent to live in relationship with God within the covenant He has established through His Son with a larger body of baptized believers, the Church. But at the same time, faith falls flat if it does not go beyond individual reason. It falls flat because it is so individualized, exclusive, and self-centered. Tertullian said famously that “one Christian is no Christian.” It is true that our faith must be personal, that we must have a personal relationship with God. But our faith must not be limited to that personal relationship alone. Our relationship with God is valid only if it is realized in communion with the whole Church.
I’ve spoken of the Church as family, and I want to return to that image. Children can break fellowship with the family if they consider themselves outside the family’s fate. They are family members only in so much as they live as part of the family, accepting all the responsibilities and self-sacrifice that such family status demands. I don’t have to explain this to my children. They understand from birth that they belong to a larger group, and belong in the most intimate way. They know who their father and mother are and where to go for help and for security. The concept of ‘family’ is beyond them, but the reality of family life is not. In other words, children have a sense of belonging a dozen years or more before they understand what this belonging means.
The earthly family is an image of the heavenly family, the family of the Kingdom of God. Children born to a Christian family are born again into the heavenly family through baptism. A child baptized in the Orthodox Church belongs to a spiritual family. This family bridges both heaven and earth, stretches backward and forward in time and includes both saints and angels. Children belong to this family exactly as each of my daughters belongs to my family. They know in a profound way that they belong long before they have some kind of cerebral understanding of that belonging.
Our modern world so exults reason and cerebralism that young children are sometimes treated as not fully human, or are at least treated less seriously than adults because they can’t think like we do. The truth is that a child is a full human being. A child of any age is capable of expressing and participating in the glory of God. Christ Himself sanctified every age as God-bearing, since He was as much the perfect Word of God as an infant as when He was a grown man. We must remember that children are not second-class persons. Their baptisms are as significant to them and to God as adult baptisms. Even if they do not cognitively understand what that baptism means, they are certainly capable of intuitively understanding it.
What if a child leaves or rejects Christ later in life?

This is a real concern, but not a reason to keep children from full membership in the New Covenant by denying them baptism and communion. We should rather accept them as the Lord commanded us to do, because raising them up in the life in Christ will give them a much better chance of carrying this life beyond our parental guardianship. If someone has no intention of raising a child in Christ—if they have no intention of attending church, praying as a family in the home, teaching the Bible, encouraging questions about the faith, and giving their children every opportunity to experience the life of the Church—then they should in no way bring their child to be baptized.
When we decide to baptize a child we make the most solemn of promises to God. We are promising to do everything in our power to bring that child to Christ, and this is a promise that we can only make if we are doing everything we can to draw near to Him ourselves. Children take seriously what we take seriously. If they grow up in a home in which conversations about Christ, prayer, and reading from the Bible and the lives of the saints are part of normal daily life, they will feed off this as much as the food we put on their plates at the dinner table. Children are deeply impressed by candlelight and incense, by flowers at Pascha, by late-night processions during Holy Week, by palm leaves on Palm Sunday, by icons, by lake blessings at Theophany, and by vestments and altar service. All of this fascinates them and draws them into Christ. As a priest, I see just how real the life of faith is to children when they approach the chalice to receive communion. It is in their eyes, and I am humbled. When they see that we are excited and involved, they will become excited and involved. Raising a child in Christ is simple. Just be a child yourself in Christ. Take it seriously. Children take faith very seriously, and we should either honor that faith ourselves or we shouldn’t baptize them.
But what if they do leave Christ? What if we do all that we can do and they still walk away? Wouldn’t it then have been better not to baptize them? Of course not! Would a responsible parent ever dream of keeping their child outside full family membership until they were sure that the child wants to be in the family? Peter Leithart, a Presbyterian and father of ten children himself, makes an excellent point in his book Against Christianity: “Romans normally excluded children from the dinner table until the age of fifteen or sixteen, at which age boys received the toga virilis that marked their entrance to manhood. Family dinner as we know it was a Christian invention, not some ‘natural’ form of family life. The family dinner is a reflection of the eucharistic meal, the meal that welcomed all members of Christ to the table. Opposition to communion of children is pagan and seeks to reverse the revolutionary table fellowship established by the Church. It is an attempt to return to Egypt.”
The family that eats together should receive communion together, the one an image of the other. A child raised in the fullness of the faith has the greatest of foundations. Every human being is free to do God’s will or not. He wants us to choose to do His will. But even when He knows that we won’t, He still does not deny us food, clothing, or shelter. He does not deny us love, joy, long life, and children of our own. Will we be so afraid of what our children might do that we deny them the one thing everyone needs—communion in the Church and full membership in the life-giving covenant of Christ? Where is our faith? Where is our resolve? Where is our love for God and for our children? To whom is Christ speaking now, when He says, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them”?

(continued)

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Will unbaptized children go to hell if they die?

No. The Orthodox Church does not believe that children are born guilty of Adam’s sin and that unless freed of that guilt through baptism and communion they will die without God’s mercy. Such a notion is pernicious both for its barbarism and for its distortion of God. Do we really think that God is so small that He is bound by our rites, the rites He has given us? God is sovereign, and He will have mercy on whom He has mercy and judgment on whom He has judgment (Romans 9:15).
We can talk about sin and guilt in three ways. First there is primordial sin, the sin of Adam. We understand this not in terms of inherited guilt, but in terms of a fallen world. Primordial sin introduced sickness, suffering, evil, and death into God’s perfect creation (1 John 5:19; Romans 5:12). We are born into Adam’s sin in that we are born into a fallen world. But without our participation, there is no guilt. Second, there is generational sin, which we see in terms of specific propensities to sin. A child of alcoholics, for example, will inherit not the guilt of his parents but the tendency to sin as they did, or other sins associated with this generational heritage. Again, we do not have to submit to this sinful heritage, we do not have to carry it on ourselves. Finally, there is personal sin, the stuff we do ourselves, whether as perpetuation of the general fallenness of this world, the generational fallenness of our parents or surroundings, or as the invention of sins of our own. A person becomes guilty when they personally sin. A child is not guilty until they make sin a personal decision, either consciously or unconsciously.
It is true that baptism is the washing away of sin, and one could say that it seems senseless to baptize a child if they have no inherited guilt to wash away. However, Christ’s sacrifice, in to which we are baptized, was a sacrifice of His whole life as a submission to God— “not My will, but Yours, be done” (Luke 22:42)—and His death on the Cross not only washed away our sins, but also destroyed death itself. When we are baptized we are baptized into His life and death (Romans 6:4), and we become co-beneficiaries of a life which finally brought God and man into a union of love and a harmony of will. The infant is initiated into that union. This initiation will include the forgiveness of their sins, but is not limited to that forgiveness. The life and death of Christ, which reverses the primordial, generational, and personal falleness of this world, is what the child enters through baptism.
Is baptism just a sign?

Everything I have said assumes that baptism is more than just an outward expression of an inward acceptance of Christ. Of course, baptism is an outward expression in that physical hands are laid on a physical person and that the rites of baptism are tangible, visible, and physical. But the Orthodox embrace completely the Incarnation of Christ. For us, Christ’s body was not just an outward expression. Christ’s physical body was not an incidental part of His saving Incarnation. His body was indivisibly part of His whole person. So important is the body to God that the Christian promise is that we will be raised with our bodies.
Baptism effects a change in one’s status with God. It is more than a mere sign. The views held by most Christians about marriage provide a useful comparison. Few Christians would say that a marriage ceremony is merely a “sign.” A change clearly occurs. The man and the woman are separate before the ceremony, but they are “one flesh” after. This is a profound change, one which is effected by God through the ceremony itself. Baptism is no different. The rite of baptism has always been understood as a baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ, an entrance into the saving covenant, an enrollment in the Lamb’s book of life, a union with the whole people of God, and the giving of a new citizenship in the Kingdom not of this world. Clearly, this is more than just a formality.
What happens to a child when he or she is baptized?

First of all, children are baptized into a story. Christians are the people of a story. The Lord did not appear from nowhere with a message and language of His own inven-tion. He came as the fulfillment of a promise made in the beginning to Abraham, in conformity to the prophecies concerning Him. The subsequent promises and prophecies, the peoples and the sins, the punishments and the mercies, these are our story. It is the story of Christ, and it is the duty and joy of every Christian to know and teach this story. When children are baptized into this narrative, they become part of it. The stories of the patriarchs, the judges, the kings, the prophets, the apostles, the saints who followed them, and of Christ Himself, become their stories. This is clear in Exodus, when Moses and the Israelites are commanded to tell through a ritual re-enactment, the Passover Supper, the story of God’s glorious and nation-making act in Egypt. Children are commanded to be part of the ritual, because this story is their birthright. The same is true of the fulfilled Passover of Christ, when the Lord again commanded us to “remember” what He accomplished for us on the Cross through the ritual remembrance of the Liturgy. We tell the story of God and His people because we are His people. And when we preach—as Peter did, as Stephen did, as Paul did—we preach our story. Our children are raised in this story, and by virtue of baptism this story becomes their own.
Second, children are baptized into a people. From the beginning God’s covenant was made with a people, not with a person. The promise to Abraham was made to all nations, the covenant with Moses was made with the whole of Israel, and the New Covenant of Christ was made with the New Israel, the Church of God. We are a people called out of the nations, called out of the world, and through baptism we come to belong to a people who belong to God. We are made citizens of Heaven. We join a heavenly ethnicity. My daughters, through baptism, belong to this people more than they belong to Canada, their country of birth. We have our Kingdom culture of daily prayer, regular fasting, festal cycles, and biblical storytelling. We have oaths of allegiance in the form of the Creed. We have our national anthems in the hymns we sing. We have our national heroes in the saints and church fathers and mothers. Our king is God. This sounds cute to the modern ear, but it is true. And it is deeply Orthodox and fundamentally biblical, so much so that this alternative nationalism was the basis for the early Roman persecution of Christians.
Third, a child is baptized into life in Christ. “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus,” says St. Paul, “were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3–4) This newness of life is what we all participate in through baptism, adult and child alike. Certainly children participate differently than adults, but no less authentically. Learning to pray, to read the Bible, to understand their inheritance, to walk in the way of the Lord, eating and drinking of the Eucharist, being trained in righteousness—this is as much walking in newness of life as anything in the spiritual life, and sometimes children are more engaged in these activities than adults in their church. And because they have been baptized into life in Christ they also receive the benefits of that life—the Grace, the forgiveness, the Fatherhood of God, the nourishment of the Body and Blood of Christ, and the presence of the Holy Spirit. The difference of twenty years and the ability to pay bills and stay up late does not make an adult more needful of these things than children, or more worthy of them. Children become full participants in Christ, as He ordained them to be and indeed as He became incarnate for them to be. This means as well that they are baptized into a promise. If they are buried with Christ in baptism, they will be raised with Him as well. They are raised with the promise of eternal life, with the expectation of the Resurrection. We do not hang this promise in front of them like a carrot (or a lollipop) to lead them to some future acceptance of Christ. By virtue of baptism, they participate in this promise now. They do so because they already experience life in Christ. Indeed, they grow up at His very knee.

-------------------------------------

Mary

 

[MrPolo]

It is true that baptism is the washing away of sin, and one could say that it seems senseless to baptize a child if they have no inherited guilt to wash away. However, Christ’s sacrifice, in to which we are baptized, was a sacrifice of His whole life as a submission to God— “not My will, but Yours, be done” (Luke 22:42)—and His death on the Cross not only washed away our sins, but also destroyed death itself. When we are baptized we are baptized into His life and death (Romans 6:4), and we become co-beneficiaries of a life which finally brought God and man into a union of love and a harmony of will. The infant is initiated into that union. This initiation will include the forgiveness of their sins, but is not limited to that forgiveness. The life and death of Christ, which reverses the primordial, generational, and personal falleness of this world, is what the child enters through baptism.

I am a little confused by this explanation. It says the child has no guilt to wash away, but says baptism includes "forgiveness of their sins". Does that mean this author is saying the child has committed a sin within the few days of its life "consciously or unconsciously" as the author words it?

 

[MrPolo]

An Orthodox friend to whom I also asked about this issue gave me the following, which confirmed my earlier suspicion that the Orthodox do not consider the IC heretical. Someone else in this thread said the Orthodox DID consider the IC heretical. But here is what the Orthodox Bishop says:

"The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing."

Source: Bishop Kallistos Ware, Orthodox Church​

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm

 

[Mary of Bethany]

I am a little confused by this explanation. It says the child has no guilt to wash away, but says baptism includes "forgiveness of their sins". Does that mean this author is saying the child has committed a sin within the few days of its life "consciously or unconsciously" as the author words it?

I believe he's speaking in more general terms about children - not just infants - here, so there could be sins to be washed away, even though the child may not yet have reached the "age of accountability" that Baptists, for instance, think must be attained before a child can be baptized. Remember, this is addressed to "anabaptist" type protestants.

Mary

 

[RND]

....that Baptists, for instance, think must be attained before a child can be baptized.

Lots of protestants still believe this to be true.

 

[MamaZ]

Baptism for a baby does what?

 

[katherine2001]

Why were babies part of the covenant that God had with the Jewish people? Babies were brought into that covenant as well. If God made babies part of His covenant with the Jews, why would He all of a sudden stop? Though both East and West, babies were baptized up until the Reformation? Therefore, not bringing children into the Covenant is a very modern thing.

 

[stjesusfreak8]

Where in the Bible does it say you can ONLY pray to Jesus or the Father through Jesus?

Also we look at tradition to tell us we can pray to Mary and the Saints.

scripture says there is only one mediator between God and man: Jesus Christ.
1 Timothy 2:5

 

[stjesusfreak8]

When it is said Catholics "pray to" Mary or the saints, it means to ask them for intercession. Asking other members of the Body of Christ for intercession is quite Biblical.

Romans 15:30 I appeal to you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf.

2 Thess 3:1 Finally, brothers, pray for us.​

Praying for Paul was what he was asking. Remember Paul is still alive. Once you die you cant be communicated to. Thats whats unbiblical. Praying for someone is biblical; praying to someone besides Jesus is false and a sin.

 

[MrPolo]

Once you die you cant be communicated to. Thats whats unbiblical.

No, asking other members of the body of Christ to pray for us is Biblical. Anyone who says members of the body in heaven are off-limits is the one adding to Scripture. Scripture doesn't make that qualification.

 

[Ave Maria]

Mary called Jesus "her Savior."

Luk 1:46 ¶ And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

Luk 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

If Mary was sinless why would she need a Savior?

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

Source: Immaculate Conception and Assumption

 

[ASquared]

Reading posts about Mary/Angels raises my ire. I spent a large part of my life Catholic, and was ensared in some of the lies they perpetrate. I can't understand what drove Catholicism into heresy, especially when it comes to minor players in the drama of salvation.
here's some of the Ave Maria:
"Immaculate Mary your prasies we sing, you reign now in heaven with Jesus our King"
Praise Mary? Mary reigns in heaven with Jesus? Where, in God's Word, does any of this show up? Simply put, it doesn't. Check the 1st commandment:
"I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt. You shall have NO GODS BEFORE ME", To place Mary on equal footing with Jesus is pure, unadulterated idolatry. I honest think Mary, were she here, would be ashamed.

 

[Athanasias]

Reading posts about Mary/Angels raises my ire. I spent a large part of my life Catholic, and was ensared in some of the lies they perpetrate. I can't understand what drove Catholicism into heresy, especially when it comes to minor players in the drama of salvation.
here's some of the Ave Maria:
"Immaculate Mary your prasies we sing, you reign now in heaven with Jesus our King"
Praise Mary? Mary reigns in heaven with Jesus? Where, in God's Word, does any of this show up? Simply put, it doesn't. Check the 1st commandment:
"I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt. You shall have NO GODS BEFORE ME", To place Mary on equal footing with Jesus is pure, unadulterated idolatry. I honest think Mary, were she here, would be ashamed.

No one ever said that Mary is God in this song ! Human beings can receive praise too.

Some biblical examples:

"Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."( 1 Cor 11:1-2)

"You, Judah, shall your brothers praise --your hand on the neck of your enemies; the sons of your father shall bow down to you."( Gen 49:8)

"And today the LORD is making this agreement with you: you are to be a people peculiarly his own, as he promised you; and provided you keep all his commandments, he will then raise you high in praise and renown and glory above all other nations he has made, and you will be a people sacred to the LORD, your God, as he promised."(Deut 26:18-19).

Mary does reign in heaven with Jesus the King if she is saved. As a matter of fact if anyone goes to heaven then they will reign with Jesus the King.

Mary is depicted as the queen mother in Rev 12:1.

"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days."(Rev 12:1-6)

Jesus was a King in the line of david(Matt 1:1). All Davidic kings had queen mothers who would intercede for the people. A example of this is found in the bible with Solomon and his Queen Mother Bathsheba:

"Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, and the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage. Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king's mother, who sat at his right."There is one small favor I would ask of you," she said. "Do not refuse me." "Ask it, my mother," the king said to her, "for I will not refuse you."( 1 Kings 2:19-20).

Notice how naturally Mary begins to take the role of Queen Mother as she intercedes for the people at Cana.

"Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."(And) Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come."His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you."(JN 2: 2-5)


Mary is Jesus Mother so naturally she is the new Davidic Queen mother of heaven as Rev 12 and John 2 shows her to be as she fullfills the old covenant role of Queen mother.

No one is putting Mary on equal footing with Jesus. Catholics do not teach she is equal to God. The song Immaculate Mary just shows her proper biblical role as Queen Mother.

I hope that helps!

 

[Athanasias]

Catholics beleive that Mary's Immaculate Conception is Biblical! We look biblically to see who Mary is in Scripture and what role She fulfills. we look at the big picture from old to New Testament to understand this.

Typing away

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 (1 Cor 15:22, 45). One can see parallels between Adam and Christ. For through Adam all death comes and through Christ all life comes(Jn 3:15-16). Jesus is everything that Adam was and more. Jesus obeyed the Father perfectly, unlike Adam. Jesus fulfills and destroys Adams curse.

Mary is the Second Eve
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 disobey 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 accept 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 Jn 6:54-58).

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(Jn 2:4, Jn 19:26-27) and in Rev 12:1-17 one discovers that the "woman" who is described as a fulfillment 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”[not corrupted by sin] 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 conceived 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.

Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant

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(Jn 6:48-51) and is the new covenant high priest who rules the new kingdom, the church with a rod of iron(Rev 12:5). Like the ten words carried in the Ark, Jesus is the Word of God incarnate himself(Jn1:1,14). 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(Ex 40:34). 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(Lk:1:35). 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.


The Early Christian 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. One of the earliest hymns [The Nisibene Hymn 4th century] written in praise of Mary spoke of Mary as "without stain or blemish" and more early hymns of the early church also spoke of her as the "Ark Gilded by the Holy Ghost"[Akathist hymn 5th century]. 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 (the fulfillment of that cargo, Jesus who was far more holier). 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). Combine this with St. Gabriel's proclamation to Mary giving her the title "Full of grace"(Lk 1:28)or as many Greek bible scholars have shown a more proper translation of that passage is "one who has been perfected and completed in Grace". If a person is perfected or completed in grace there is no room for sin. Hence Mary's Immaculate Conception is biblically implicit.

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.

Another 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 message does not pertain to Mary. Paul, when he used the word "all", was not describing every single 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 because of her roles as the Ark of the Covenant and new Eve.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Catholics beleive that Mary's Immaculate Conception is Biblical!

Perhaps. But then Calvinists believe that OBOB is biblical - and yet you insist that it's not, so what a single denomination "believes" is, by your own rubric, meaningless and moot.

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 (1 Cor 15:22, 45). One can see parallels between Adam and Christ. For through Adam all death comes and through Christ all life comes(Jn 3:15-16). Jesus is everything that Adam was and more. Jesus obeyed the Father perfectly, unlike Adam. Jesus fulfills and destroys Adams curse.

The "problem" with such extremely creative typology (used extensively by the LDS) is that ANYTHING can be viewed as a "type" if no antitype exists (but is simply assumed).

PAUL'S inspired statement in the NT of a "type" in the OT means we have a stated fulfillment; such is entirely lacking in your (and all LDS) "typing."

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 disobey 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 accept 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 Jn 6:54-58).

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(Jn 2:4, Jn 19:26-27) and in Rev 12:1-17 one discovers that the "woman" who is described as a fulfillment of Eve is the Mother of God herself.

... again, completely and totally baseless. You have NOTHING to support this "type" - just (and only) a "belief" that such is. Dr. Hahn's statement makes Mormon typology seem absolutely convincing; it's too weak to even be considered.

The typology of Mary as New Eve is important to the Immaculate Conception because it shows implicit evidence for the doctrine.

... because it's all you've got. Amazing!

If any Protestant offered anything even ten times stronger than this, I have a hunch you'd laugh at it. Seriously.

And it's dogma, not doctrine.

Remembering that all New Testament fulfillments

Except you have none. The NT NEVER states this as a type at all. You are simply ASSUMING the type and ASSUMING the fulfillment. It's all your ASSUMPTION - there's nothing in the Scriptures that remotely so indicates. It's a case of pure exegesis and of an assumption used as the substantiation for the self-same, a perfect circle. I'd be more open to this if the RCC permittted others to use the same rubric, but it doesn't.

If Mary was not conceived sinless she would be a inferior type to Eve.

So? Do "types" have to be equal? If so, was Noah equal to Jesus and also sinless and also divine? I find this apologetic not only baseless but moot.

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.

Hello, Mary is never once so much as even mentioned in Revelation. No Mary at all. This is nothing more than PURE exegesis; ANYTHING is "proven" if we can just insert whatever into whatever text and then use our insertion as "substantiation" for the self-same.

Some Protestants would argue that Mary could not be sinless because she proclaimed that she herself had a savior.

"Could" is not dogma. It's theoretically possible that Mary was 10 feet tall, had pink hair and lived almost entirely on fish tacos - but that's hardly dogmatic proof that such is true. "Could be" is not substantiation of anything, on any level.


The dogma is entirely on your end. It's absurd to argue that if it's not "dogma" that Mary was conceived sinless, therefore it's dogma that she was. I wonder why the RCC is so extremely adversive to mystery? There is no dogma of "Mary was conceived with sin." Never has been, still isn't, not in ANY of the 35,000 denominations Catholics around here say exists. The ONLY dogma about Mary and her state at her conception is YOURS. The substantiation must be yours. To the level of dogma. Your time trying to indicate that the arguments against it are less than convincing does NOTHING to supply dogmatic substantiation for the only dogma on this issue that exists - yours.




.