Mary as Immaculate Conception

This thread was initiated in response to specific claims by Yankee_drifter.

Mary as Immaculate Conception Proved from Scripture

Luke 1:28
Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

A question Randy. What is the Aramaic equivilent? I do not know but do you? The angel did not speak in Greek to her. I can be convinced of this dogma (not that it is your goal) but a careful parsing of a translation will not do it for me. Thanks.

Brian-

I had a conversation with a friend about this today. Here are some thoughts:

  1. We have no way of knowing whether the angel spoke aloud to Mary or simply communicated to her in her mind. The angel spoke to Joseph in a dream, remember, so aural communication may or may not have taken place.

  2. We have no way of knowing what language the angel used. I would put my money on Aramaic, but who knows?

  3. Luke was a Greek, and he was fluent in that language.

  4. Luke was an educated man, a physician, and very knowledgeable about the scriptures.

  5. Luke interviewed Mary personally, and he was in a position to record her experiences accurately.

  6. Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and we should respect that kecharitomene contains exactly what God wanted His inerrant Word to contain.

At least, that’s what we came up with. :stuck_out_tongue:

It doesn’t matter whether or not they spoke in Aramaic, the inspired Scripture (for this passage) was written in Greek. Luke and the Holy Spirit chose κεχαριτωμένη (kecharitomene) for a reason. We Catholics appeal to the Aramaic with respect to Matthew 16:18 because that’s what the inspired version was written in.

Of course it matters because there is a constant appeal to Aramaic when it comes to the brothers. As far as Matthew originally being in Aramaic; that COULD be the case but that is far from accepted. Surely you know that. Is is the official position that Matthew was written in Aramaic? Does the Catholic version of the Matthew, whatever that may be, come from a Aramaic copy?
But IF Matthew was written in Aramaic, wouldn’t the vast majority of quotes from the Hebrew scriptures be from the Hebrew text and not the LXX? I also would point out that your particular position makes it necessary for Matthew to be first; which may or may not be the case.

Brian-

I understand your argument, but I think the circumstances are different.

In the case of Catholic appeals to the Aramaic concerning Peter, Petros, Petra and Kepha/Cephas, the fact that Peter is called “Cephas” in other passages means that we are not relying simply on the one passage from Mattthew 16:18 to make our case. And the existence of these passages PROVES that Simon was called “Kepha/Cephas” and NOT Petros by Jesus.

In the case of the “brothers” and “adelphoi”, again, other scriptures passages PROVE the Catholic argument by illustrating that James and Joses were NOT uterine brothers but “kinsmen” and that Lot was NOT a “brother” but the nephew of Abram.

In the case of kecharitomene, there are no other passages to which we can refer. Thus, we are left with a Greek word written by a Greek convert who was inspired by the Holy Spirit to tell the story told to him by Mary herself.

And unless Luke knew Aramaic, Mary had to tell her story to him in Greek.

Concerning the claim of immaculate conception, Mary followed the Mosaic laws of purification because she was a normal Israelite, a sinner, the same as you and I are sinners (Lev 12:2-4, Luke 2:22) The Scriptures do not exempt Mary from the guilt of sin (Rom 3:9-23). Born of human parents, she too needed a Savior. “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord and my spirit exults in GOD MY SAVIOR” (Luke 1:47). The RCC is still undecided over the question of Mary’s death, however, nothing is said in the Scriptures that she was taken into heaven.

There must be conformity to God’s New Covenant (Heb 2:1-3). Under the OT, men acted as mediators between God and the people of Israel. These frailties have been replaced by the One Divine Mediator of God’s New Covenant (Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24). No saint, nor Mary, can act as mediator, or be of spiritual help (Heb 2:16-18, 4:14-16) In the NT order there is but One Mediator, and He is the Divine Son of God (1 Tim 2:5).

The pope has declared Mary co-redemptive and mediatrix. This is unscriptual and puts Mary on the cross with Jesus.

Though the Bible honors Mary as the mother of Jesus and calls her “blessed among women” (not above women, Lk 1:28), it does not teach us to deify her, venerate her, or pray to her. The Scriptures recognize Mary as a woman of humility, obedience, and virtue.

The Scriptures tells us how Jesus taught His disciples how to pray. (Matt 6:5-15) Prayer is to be addressed to God only-not to saints or anyone else. Jesus forbade repetitive prayers. The rosary is almost the continual repetition of a sentence addressed to Mary. For the apostles to pray to Mary or ask for her intercession when Christ alone sits at the Father’s right hand and intercedes for us, finds no scriptural support and is contrary to what Christ taught them.

Randy, you read the scriptures through the colored glass of Rome. You try and force the Bible to conform to what your church and catechism says. But Jesus said we err, when we do not know the Scriptures.

Mary underwent purification because she was obedient to the ritual law - not because of moral failure.

The Scriptures do not exempt Mary from the guilt of sin (Rom 3:9-23). Born of human parents, she too needed a Savior. “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord and my spirit exults in GOD MY SAVIOR” (Luke 1:47).

Mary did need a savior, and I’ll address Romans 3:23 in a separate post.

God saved Mary differently than He has saved you and me. Let me illustrate: I can pull you out of a pit into AFTER you have fallen in and save you…or I can prevent you from falling in the first place.

God prevented her from inheriting sin in the first place.

The RCC is still undecided over the question of Mary’s death, however, nothing is said in the Scriptures that she was taken into heaven.

As has been pointed out to you elsewhere, Mary is seen in heaven in Revelation 12.

The pope has declared Mary co-redemptive and mediatrix. This is unscriptual and puts Mary on the cross with Jesus.

Could you cite these documents, please? Thanks.

The Scriptures tells us how Jesus taught His disciples how to pray. (Matt 6:5-15) Prayer is to be addressed to God only-not to saints or anyone else. Jesus forbade repetitive prayers. The rosary is almost the continual repetition of a sentence addressed to Mary. For the apostles to pray to Mary or ask for her intercession when Christ alone sits at the Father’s right hand and intercedes for us, finds no scriptural support and is contrary to what Christ taught them.

The Our Father is addressed to Mary? The “Glory Be” is addressed to Mary?

Concerning “repetitious prayer”:

Matthew 6:7-8: Vain Repetition

Many non-Catholics believe that praying the rosary violates Jesus’ teaching about “vain repetition” found in His Sermon on the Mount:

“And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” (Matthew 6:7-8)

Immediately after saying this, He went on to teach the crowd the following prayer:

"This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.’” (Matthew 6:9-13)

Jesus didn’t say, “You might want to say something like the following”…he said, “When you pray, say” and He gave us precise words that we should pray daily for our daily bread, and these words have been repeated for 2,000 years. Is this “vain repetition”? Hardly.

Matthew 26:43-44
43When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

Jesus prayed a third time saying the same things he had said previously. Is this “vain repetition”? Hardly.

Revelation 4:8
Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings.Day and night they never stop saying: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.”

The creatures keep saying the same thing over and over and over again - day and night. Is this “vain repetition”? Hardly.

Randy, you read the scriptures through the colored glass of Rome. You try and force the Bible to conform to what your church and catechism says. But Jesus said we err, when we do not know the Scriptures.

I do read the scriptures through the lenses of Catholic understanding…I’ll grant you that much.

Conforming what the Bible says with what the Church and the Catechism teach is the easy part. :thumbsup:

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)


**Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “**for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

Randy, Mary was not seen heaven in Rev. 12. It is clear to me the woman is Israel. As far as Mary not being born without sin, is a bunch of intellectual mumble jumbo, and certainly not Biblical.

Peace,,   Jack

“The rosary is almost the continual repetition of a sentence addressed to Mary.”

Oh, no, it’s not, not if it’s said the way it’s intended.

A full rosary is fifteen decades of beads. That’s 150 Aves. Now, before anyone gets upset and says: “That’s glorifying Mary over God!”, let’s consider why that would be the number. The rosary was originally intended for Scripture meditation, and that’s how it’s still used today by many Catholics, particularly the Dominicans, to whom it was given.

There was one Ave for a short meditation on each of the Psalms. Look in the Bible. There are 150 Psalms. The Aves were time keepers, steps through the psalms. This isn’t “vain repetitious prayer”, not unless one considers contemplation of the psalms a waste of time. (The same goes for other forms of rosary devotion, such as the Mysteries, which are meditations on the life of Christ and use Scripture verses for that meditation.)

And let’s look at the Ave itself:

Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee (What the angel said to her in Luke’s gospel)
Blessed are thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (What Elizabeth said to her in Luke’s gospel)
JESUS (Right in the middle of the prayer, as its center and focus, and Catholics bow when saying His Holy Name)
Holy Mary, Mother of God (the title given to her at the ancient council at Ephesus)
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, amen.(A request for one Christian to pray for another)

Now, the first half is Scripture derived, the central point is Jesus Christ, Who is her Son as well as the Heavenly Father’s, and so His Divinity is reiterated in her title as “Mother of God”, and the last part is a request for her to pray for us. So, we ask her to pray for us since she is already in Heaven and can ask her Son to grant us His mercy at the hour of our death. What is objectionable about that?

Oh, at this point, someone might say, “She’s dead. We don’t pray to the dead.”

But in Revelation, the saints before the throne are alive. Anyone who is in Heaven with God is fully and truly alive. And so it is incorrect to say “Catholics pray to the dead.” when we ask the saints to pray for us to Christ. There is only One Mediator between the Father and us: His Son, Jesus. But there’s nothing in Scripture contrary to the idea that we can ask other Christians to pray for us.

As for the Immaculate Conception, it wasn’t “invented to glorify Mary”. She wasn’t made sinless exactly as Eve had been. In Mary’s case, she was preserved from the taint of original sin as she was conceived by a positive act of grace won for her by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. She did nothing to “earn” it; it was a gift granted her by God. It was given to her, not for her benefit, but for His Son’s, so that the Holy Incarnated Son would have a sinless temple in which to reside while He was preparing to be born.

Is this contrary to Scripture, this act of grace happening out of sequence to time? Indeed not. There were prophets and patriarchs and others in the Old Testament who died before Christ came but were not condemned to hell. Otherwise, Enoch and Elijah (to name two examples) could not have been assumed from this life into the next in such obviously God-glorifying ways. God, Who is outside of the flow of time and not bound by it, could apply the future merits of His Son’s obedient death to whomever and whenever He deemed worthy.

Of course, the deepest point of the Marian dogmas is not to glorify a human being but to protect the dogmas involving her Divine Son. By giving Mary the place as a sinless human being (by God’s gracious Will and design), we place Jesus above that, far, far above that, where He truly belongs. For to place Jesus in the place Mary occupies in Catholic teaching is to risk making Him into what the Arians and the Jehovah’s Witnesses make Him: A perfect man, not the Perfect God-man.

Yours in Christ,
Dominicanis

Jack, I wonder if this might help you… For starters, lets consider how the Apocalypse (Revelation) was originally read. W/o chapter/verse markers, basically on a big scroll. So lets try to replicate that reading experience some.

11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. 12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

Now I think we both agree that God wanted the woman identified correct? It wouldn’t make much sense to have this powerful of symbolic imagry just to have it left completely unexplained. More over, I think we can both agree that God would have used symbols which were easily recognisable to Christian’s of the day. Now lets consider, that the sybolism of Mary as the Ark of the new covenant is very ancient, in fact almost certainly apostolic (see here catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6811&CFID=19577320&CFTOKEN=60098975 for some data regarding this). Lets look at 11:19

and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.

The ark of Gods testament (covenant?) is seen when the doors open, I would argue that since this text is God addressing it to Christians, who are now the “choosen people” that this would be the new covenant. This would be a symbol of Mary.

More over

woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.

She is pregnant with “a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod”. Again, to early Christians (as well as many of us today anyway) this would again speak of Christ would it not?

It is clear to me the woman is Israel.

Jimmy Akin discussed that twelve years ago in an article from This Rock magazine:

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

Excerpt: *There is a lot of debate about what the symbol of this Woman represents. Different.aspects of the symbol point to different possible meanings for it.

Unfortunately, most of the debate over what the Woman represents is misdirected because it does not take into account the way that Revelation uses symbolism.

The vision contains “fusion imagery,” in which one symbol is composed of elements from several different things. For example, the four living creatures John sees around God’s throne (4:6–8) are a fusion of elements from the cherubim seen in Ezekiel (Ezek. 10:1–14) and the seraphim seen in Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–5).

Similarly, the priest-elders John sees around the throne (4:4) are numbered twenty-four because they are a fusion of the twelve patriarchs of Israel and the twelve apostles of Jesus, a symbolism which occurs at the end of the book (21:12–14), where New Jerusalem is seen to have twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles and twelve gates with the names of the twelve patriarchs.

The beast from the sea in chapter 13 is a fusion of elements from the all four of the beasts the prophet Daniel saw emerge from the sea in chapter 7 of his book.

Polyvalent symbolism, in which symbols have more than one meaning, also is part of Revelation’s imagery. For example, the seven heads of the beast are said to be both seven mountains (Rev. 17:9) and seven kings (17:10).

The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.*

She can be Israel, but she can also be the Church, Eve and Mary. There are elements from all of them present.

Yours in Christ,
Dominicanis

Jack-

Thank you for joining our discussion. I agree that the woman of Rev. 12 is Israel, but that is only one of the four meanings. Here is the explanation:

THE WOMAN OF REVELATION 12
By James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

“And a great portent appeared in heaven, 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 she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. . . . [S]he brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne. . . . Then the dragon was angry with the Woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” (Rev. 12:1–2, 5, 17).

There is a lot of debate about what the symbol of this Woman represents. Different aspects of the symbol point to different possible meanings for it.

Unfortunately, most of the debate over what the Woman represents is misdirected because it does not take into account the way that Revelation uses symbolism.

The vision contains “fusion imagery,” in which one symbol is composed of elements from several different things. For example, the four living creatures John sees around God’s throne (4:6–8) are a fusion of elements from the cherubim seen in Ezekiel (Ezek. 10:1–14) and the seraphim seen in Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–5).

Similarly, the priest-elders John sees around the throne (4:4) are numbered twenty-four because they are a fusion of the twelve patriarchs of Israel and the twelve apostles of Jesus, a symbolism which occurs at the end of the book (21:12–14), where New Jerusalem is seen to have twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles and twelve gates with the names of the twelve patriarchs.

The beast from the sea in chapter 13 is a fusion of elements from the all four of the beasts the prophet Daniel saw emerge from the sea in chapter 7 of his book.

Polyvalent symbolism, in which symbols have more than one meaning, also is part of Revelation’s imagery. For example, the seven heads of the beast are said to be both seven mountains (Rev. 17:9) and seven kings (17:10).

The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.

She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which the patriarch Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.

The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, “the rest of her offspring” are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.

The Woman is Eve because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed—which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus.

Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).

Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary’s Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict.

Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively (the prophecy that a sword would pierce her heart at the Crucifixion). Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).

Did you have a point to make? Why just requote the post without really responding to or interacting with its contents? Catholics want to be with Jesus, too; union with Him in the next life is our dearest and deepest desire.

To quote Apolonio Latar III: *The phrase, “I do not want any Church standing between me and God” is very unfortunate. One would not say, “I don’t want the government to stand between me and my country.” As Fulton Sheen said,

**"To say one between God and me is anti-Christian because it implies that your brother is a barrier to God's grace and not a means to it."**

Fulton Sheen is definitely right. One does not have their own mathematics, science, and astronomy. When our Blessed Lord taught us how to pray, He said, “Our Father, daily bread, trespasses” NOT “My Father, daily bread, trespasses.” If one searches the Scriptures, one would find that God always dealt with mankind through human corporations or races, or moral bodies, presided over by a divinely appointed head. First it was Noah, then Abraham to Jacob and on through the prophets. These people were part of the kahal. Throughout Jewish history one will find that being cut off from the kahal is the greatest punishment of all.

The kahal was also visible. One would know the kahal that was called the Jews. And so if God always dealt with a visible head, why would He not do it again to His new kahal? God sent our Blessed Lord to save the people. We can see that God is giving revelation through His Son as well. The Son also promised, and built a new kahal. Note that Our Blessed Lord NEVER promised NEW SCRIPTURE.

Jesus said to Peter,

"You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church." (Matthew 16:18)

Many scholars, including many Protestants, would admit that the rock refers to Peter. We also see just like Abram (Genesis 17), Jesus gave Simon a new name. This means that Simon will now have new powers and privileges. Also note, that Jesus said He would build His Church. The Greek word for Church in this verse is ekklesia, in Hebrew, kahal. So we see that Jesus is building a new visible organization. Not only is it an organization, but an organism. It is the Mystical Body of Christ. Just as revelation was given from Jesus, now it will be also given from His Mystical Body. What kind of authority does this new kahal have?

"Whatever you shall bind will be bound, and whatever you shall loose will be loosed." (Matt 16:19; 18:18)

So this new kahal is an authoritative Church like the old one. One example of this is when they were trying to figure out if Gentiles had to be circumcised. Note that they did not leave it up to the individual to decide. We read,

"My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe." (Acts 15:7)

If one practiced Sola Scriptura those days, you would hear something like this,

"Can you give me any document that says you were given that task? How do we know that God made that choice through you?"

They didn’t argue with Peter, but fell silent (Acts 15:12). Then we read that James will back up what Peter had decided. He quotes Scripture,

"After this I shall return and rebuild the fallen hut of David; from its ruins I shall rebuild it and raise it up again, so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord, even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked. Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things, known from my old." (Acts 15:16-17)

James is quoting from Amos 9:11-12. Now, how come no one is arguing with him? I can sure argue with him pretty well. He only used two verses to prove his point. How many verses in the OT say to keep the Mosaic Law and circumcise people? There are a lot more verses where I can support circumcision. Now, what if this was done today? Would the people argue with the Church? A good example is the Assumption of Mary. The Church has defined the woman in Revelation 12 to be Mary. Can someone refute that? Of course they can. Just as I can refute what James has said on Amos 9:11-12.

Another example is the case of Ptolemy, Barnabas, and Marcion. Marcion of Pontus believed an inferior god in the Old Testament who was so ignorant, the god could not find Adam (Gen 3:9). Barnabas believed that the Jews lost the covenant immediately after Moses received it when the Jews worshipped the golden calf. Ptolemy believed in three lawgivers: God Himself, Moses, and the elders of the people. The Church then made some big decisions.

"The Church excommunicated Marcion and condemned Marcionism. Barnabas found no disciples. Ptolemy's principles were rejected. Generally, the early Church did not define its teachings on its own initiative. Instead, it defined them by reacting. Only when someone announced, "I've got it all figured out," did the Church take a long look at the solution, measure it against its sense of the faith, and often enough say, "No, you don't; that's not in line with our faith." Thus, in rejecting Marcion as a heretic, in not following Barnabas, and in not accepting Ptolemy's principles, the Church made some important affirmations." (The Bible, the Church, and Authority by Joseph T. Lienhard, pg 19)*

God works through those He appoints. We can’t appoint ourselves; He does it. If one reads the Scriptures and the Early Christian Fathers, it’s easy to see that a lineage was required for those who were to preach and teach. Someone didn’t just take the Scriptures and personally interpret them; that has been, ever since the sixteenth century, a failed experiment that has produced disunity instead of unity in Christ.

Yours in Christ’s Love,
Dominicanis

I’m sorry, I didn’t know how to do the editing when posting my last post. But I did respond to the quote in underlined sentences. They were interposed in the quote itself because I didn’t know how to separate the quote and my response.

You have my apologies; it wasn’t clear who wrote the underlined portions. I removed my last post, since it was arguing a point you didn’t make.

Yours in Christ’s Love,
Dominicanis

To use quotes, there is a shortcut; copy and paste the message and put square brackets with QUOTE and /QUOTE inside at the beginning and end of each section to delineate them from responses. For example:

The pope has declared Mary co-redemptive and mediatrix. This is unscriptual and puts Mary on the cross with Jesus.

*Co-redemptrix *means that she cooperated with God’s Plan of salvation by saying “Yes” when He asked her to bear His Son. Mediatrix means that she’s the queen of the saints and angels by virtue of her relationship with her Son, not apart from Him and certainly not on a par with Him. Neither contradicts Scripture.

I hope that helps. Html codes can be a pain. :slight_smile:

Yours in Christ’s Love,
Dominicanis

In order for the doctrine of immaculate conception to be true, Mary would have to have been born in the same way Jesus was, with one non human parent. She would have to be free of sin, yet we see Mary calling God her Savior, thus acknowledging she was a sinner. The Bible also tells us that there is no one righteous, no not one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Mary’s mother would have to be immaculately conceived as well. How could Mary be conceived without sin if her mother was sinful? The same would have to be said of Mary’s grandmother, great-grandmother, and so on. So, in conclusion, the immaculate conception is not a Biblical teaching. The Bible teaches the miraculous virgin conception of Jesus Christ, not the immaculate conception of Mary.

Jesus is LORD :amen:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.