Mary, the Immaculate Conception etc


#1

At school in my Religious Education class, we have started a unit on Mary. I thought it would be great, however, it seems that no one believes in the Immaculate Conception. My Baptist friends think that there is no point, after all, they say, what was the pint of Jesus coming if His mother wasn’t with original sin?

This really confuses me mainly because in cases like this, I just believe it because its my faith.

How can I defend it? Is it in the Bible about Mary being without original sin???
Thanks


#2

Well there are the Catholic Answers tracts you could politely shove in their face :wave:

There is some biblical defense of the Immaculate Conception, the word Kecharitomene “full of grace” (Luke 1:28) and the OT types. Example: Ark of the Covenant was the holiest object that held the presence of God, Mary is paralleled to the Ark in Luke 1-2 and 2 Samuel 6.

Of course there is the historical evidence which I present here

It is also based on the development of doctrine, starting with Mother of God (Theotokos) in the 3rd, 4th, 5th century AD, but ultimately on the authority of the Church which has the final say what is true doctrine.

Phil P


#3

[quote=PhilVaz]Well there are the Catholic Answers tracts you could politely shove in their face :wave:

There is some biblical defense of the Immaculate Conception, the word Kecharitomene “full of grace” (Luke 1:28) and the OT types. Example: Ark of the Covenant was the holiest object that held the presence of God, Mary is paralleled to the Ark in Luke 1-2 and 2 Samuel 6.

Of course there is the historical evidence which I present here

It is also based on the development of doctrine, starting with Mother of God (Theotokos) in the 3rd, 4th, 5th century AD, but ultimately on the authority of the Church which has the final say what is true doctrine.

Phil P
[/quote]

Outstanding post. As always, Phil.


#4

I was confronted by this very same subject on a debate in over on Yahoo and of course turned to my friends here at CA. Here is the link to their answers : forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=60251

I found post # 18 to be especially helpful

Hope this helps


#5

Always remember: if it’s in the Bible, we know it’s true, but some things which are true may not necessarily be in the Bible.

Still, there are things in the Bible (that people have referred to above), that relate to Mary’s Immaculate Conception, though they don’t describe it specifically.

But more important, we DO know from the Bible that Jesus gave us a teaching Church, and that Church FOR SURE tells us that Mary was immaculately conceived.

Peace.
John


#6

[quote=poppiedancer]At school in my Religious Education class, we have started a unit on Mary. I thought it would be great, however, it seems that no one believes in the Immaculate Conception. My Baptist friends think that there is no point, after all, they say, what was the pint of Jesus coming if His mother wasn’t with original sin?

This really confuses me mainly because in cases like this, I just believe it because its my faith.

How can I defend it? Is it in the Bible about Mary being without original sin???
Thanks
[/quote]

There is no Biblical evidence for the EC of Mary. The idea that the term “full of grace” in Luke’s gospel account means immaculately conceived is not warranted. It doesn’t even fit the context. The angel Gabriel was there to tell her she was the one chosen (favored by God) to give brith to the Messiah, hence, “full of favor.” It has nothing to do with her own conception, but the One she was about to conceive. The EC is not a Biblical revelation but a doctrine developed over time in the minds of men.


#7

[quote=linus]The EC is not a Biblical revelation but a doctrine developed over time in the minds of men.
[/quote]

The Immaculate Conception IS a biblical revelation.

catholic.com/library/immaculate_conception_and_assum.asp


#8

[quote=linus]There is no Biblical evidence for the EC of Mary. The idea that the term “full of grace” in Luke’s gospel account means immaculately conceived is not warranted. It doesn’t even fit the context. The angel Gabriel was there to tell her she was the one chosen (favored by God) to give brith to the Messiah, hence, “full of favor.” It has nothing to do with her own conception, but the One she was about to conceive. The EC is not a Biblical revelation but a doctrine developed over time in the minds of men.
[/quote]

To be full of something means there is no possible room for anything else. Mary’s being, full of grace, could not possibly “hold” original sin. You cannot fit one drop of water into an already full glass. That may sound real simple, but it’s the way I look at it.


#9

[quote=Karen1996]To be full of something means there is no possible room for anything else. Mary’s being, full of grace, could not possibly “hold” original sin. You cannot fit one drop of water into an already full glass. That may sound real simple, but it’s the way I look at it.
[/quote]

I love your explaination that is the best way to explain “full of grace”


#10

[quote=linus]There is no Biblical evidence for the EC of Mary. The idea that the term “full of grace” in Luke’s gospel account means immaculately conceived is not warranted. It doesn’t even fit the context. The angel Gabriel was there to tell her she was the one chosen (favored by God) to give brith to the Messiah, hence, “full of favor.” It has nothing to do with her own conception, but the One she was about to conceive. The EC is not a Biblical revelation but a doctrine developed over time in the minds of men.
[/quote]

linus,

I appreciate your sincerity and passion for God’s word. May we all look to God’s word as a lamp unto our feet!

As you are clearly familiar with God’s word, could you please tell me the names of the people who God changes their name or calls them by a specific title (please include “Immanuel”)? There aren’t many, so it should be a short list. Also, could you please tell me if their new names had anything to do with their identities? And finally, could you please tell me if kacharitomene is used as a title in this text (and if not, why not)?

God bless you and keep you,
RyanL


#11

[quote=Karen1996]To be full of something means there is no possible room for anything else. Mary’s being, full of grace, could not possibly “hold” original sin. You cannot fit one drop of water into an already full glass. That may sound real simple, but it’s the way I look at it.
[/quote]

Actually, you’re just pouring a doctrine into a verse which states nothing of the sort. “Full of Grace” simply means “highly favored.” The text neither states nor implies anything about the birth of Mary. The context of the account is about the one she is to give birth to, not her own.


#12

There is none that is without sin, except God. Some EC fathers taught Mary was a sinner like all of us from birth.Even though Mary was a sinner by nature, she had within her womb the sinless Jesus, just as we sinners can also have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is also holy and pure. Most bible translations do render the verse, Hail Mary, highly favored. NASV,NIB and most others.


#13

[quote=poppiedancer]At school in my Religious Education class, we have started a unit on Mary. I thought it would be great, however, it seems that no one believes in the Immaculate Conception. My Baptist friends think that there is no point, after all, they say, what was the pint of Jesus coming if His mother wasn’t with original sin?
[/quote]

**lol, the same thing could be asked about Jesus. What was the point of Jesus comming down without contracting Original Sin? Would that make his sacrifice meaningless to us? If so, then we should still be Jewish. :whacky: **

[quote=poppiedancer]This really confuses me mainly because in cases like this, I just believe it because its my faith.
[/quote]

It is the moral obligation of Catholics to study their faith and to at least know the most important parts, which this dogma is among the most important parts.

[quote=poppiedancer]How can I defend it? Is it in the Bible about Mary being without original sin???
[/quote]

Yes, it is in the Bible though not explicitly. Just like the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t spelled out explicitly, but it’s there. Also, Just like the doctrine of Original Sin, but it is found there.

Read the CA Tract on it.

You can even purchase the tracts. or the entire CA tract collection.

**Read them Rev. 11:19 through Rev. 12:1-5. **

Rev. 12:1-5 is the description of the Blessed Mother as Queen of Heaven, and it comes immediately after Rev. 11:19 which explains the Ark of God’s Covenant in the Heavenly temple. The Ark of the Covenant is the vessel of God’s word and supposed to be dealt with care and must be clean. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant because she conceived Jesus and he is word made flesh.


#14

[quote=justcatholic]There is none that is without sin, except God. Some EC fathers taught Mary was a sinner like all of us from birth.Even though Mary was a sinner by nature, she had within her womb the sinless Jesus, just as we sinners can also have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is also holy and pure. Most bible translations do render the verse, Hail Mary, highly favored. NASV,NIB and most others.
[/quote]

“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.”

Source : catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Personally, I think you’re not a Catholic. :tsktsk:


#15

Nope, I am Catholic Sarah. When 15 other bible translations cite the verse “highly favored” instead of “Full of Grace”, it is obvious the Douay version is biased. Just like the NWT translates John 1:1 "the Word was “a god”, while all others translate the verse “the Word was God”. It’s called religious bias.

                               I also read somewhere where some fathers believe Mary became sinless at her annunciation, rather than at her birth. So the issue was varied to say the least, before the Pope in 1950 made it law.

#16

[quote=justcatholic]There is none that is without sin, except God. Some EC fathers taught Mary was a sinner like all of us from birth.Even though Mary was a sinner by nature…
[/quote]

Are you really Catholic?

(And by the way, the Early Church Fathers believed that Mary was full of grace and thus sinless.

**Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 A.D. 155]).
**

**Irenaeus

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 A.D. 189]).

**

**Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus
He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (*Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 *ante A.D. 235]).

**

**Ephraim the Syrian

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 A. D. 361]).

**

**Ambrose of Milan

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 A.D. 387]).

**

**Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

**

Augustine
We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 A.D. 415]).

**

**Theodotus of Ancrya

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

**Proclus of Constantinople

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

**Jacob of Sarug

[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

**Romanos the Melodist

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (*On the Birth of Mary *1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).


#17

[quote=justcatholic]There is none that is without sin, except God. Some EC fathers taught Mary was a sinner like all of us from birth.Even though Mary was a sinner by nature, she had within her womb the sinless Jesus, just as we sinners can also have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is also holy and pure. Most bible translations do render the verse, Hail Mary, highly favored. NASV,NIB and most others.
[/quote]

Justcatholic:

**The EC fathers weren’t infallible.:wink: Also, your word about the EC fathers is worthless without proof. **


#18

[quote=justcatholic]So the issue was varied to say the least, before the Pope in 1950 made it law.
[/quote]

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Blessed Pius IX in 1854.

The Immaculate Conception, the Bible and the Church Fathers

bringyou.to/apologetics/a115.htm


#19

[quote=justcatholic]Nope, I am Catholic Sarah. When 15 other bible translations cite the verse “highly favored” instead of “Full of Grace”, it is obvious the Douay version is biased. Just like the NWT translates John 1:1 "the Word was “a god”, while all others translate the verse “the Word was God”. It’s called religious bias.
[/quote]

This is the worst way of doing exegesis that I have ever heard. Jerome, who translated the Bible from the Greek in the early 5th century using ancient texts we don’t even *have *anymore, translated it “gratia plena”.
Gratia = grace
Plena = filled with
Just because some Protestant folks decided to translate the Bible with a “meaning centered” approach, doesn’t mean it’s correct. But no, I’m sure you know better than the greatest bible scholar who ever lived. You don’t even address the Greek word “kecharitomene”! Here’s a link to help you learn a little Koine Greek:
bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm
And just so you know it’s not biased, he includes Protestant and secular translation aids (with citations).

Now, take me up on my challenge! Please tell me the names of the people who God changes their name or calls them by a specific title (please include “Immanuel”)? There aren’t many, so it should be a short list. Also, could you please tell me if their new names had anything to do with their identities? And finally, could you please tell me if kacharitomene is used as a title in this text (and if not, why not)?

If you would stand against the mother of God, may you see who you stand against! (Rev: 12:17)

RyanL


#20

[quote=Roman_Army]**NASV, NIB, NIV, and a lot others are modern protestant translations, they try to translate things to suit their own heretical beliefs. **
[/quote]

Well, I think in most cases, they were honestly translating as accurately as they thought possible. It is merely because of their misunderstanding of doctrine that certain parts of the translation are misleading or completely incorrect.

After all, the work of translating most of those texts is an effort in conveying the meaning of the words, which is even necessary in the most literal translation attempts because there is simply not a one-to-one mapping of ancient Greek and Hebrew to English, German, French, or any other vernacular language. So, the bottom line is that some interpretation of what the writers meant is always necessary.

So, I don’t think, in most cases, the translators had an anti-Catholic agenda (although there is good evidence of it in some cases, such as the NIV where the exact same greek word was admittedly translated as “deeds” when it was understood to be good and “works” when understood to be bad, thus casting the Catholic “faith and works” for justification in a very bad light). Rather, they were just doing what they thought was the most accurate translation, which turned out to be flawed because of their lack of a solid doctrinal foundation.

Peace,
javelin


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.