• With the events that occured on July 13th, 2024, a reminder that posts wishing that the attempt was successful will not be tolerated. Regardless of political affiliation, at no point is any type of post wishing death on someone is allowed and will be actioned appropriately by CF Staff.

  • Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Mary's immaculate conception

PuerAzaelis

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2016
479
233
NYC
✟184,410.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
For it is reasonable to believe that she, who brought forth "the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth," received greater privileges of grace than all others: hence we read (Lk. 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words: "Hail full of grace!"

Moreover, it is to be observed that it was granted, by way of privilege, to others, to be sanctified in the womb; for instance, to Jeremias, to whom it was said (Jer. 1:5): "Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee"; and again, to John the Baptist, of whom it is written (Lk. 1:15): "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb." It is therefore with reason that we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb.

... Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan.): "The sanctification, by which we become temples of God, is only of those who are born again." But no one is born again, who was not born previously. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb.

Reply to Objection 2: Augustine speaks according to the common law, by reason of which no one is regenerated by the sacraments, save those who are previously born. But God did not so limit His power to the law of the sacraments, but that He can bestow His grace, by special privilege, on some before they are born from the womb.

Objection 3: Further, whoever is sanctified by grace is cleansed from sin, both original and actual. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb, it follows that she was then cleansed from original sin. Now nothing but original sin could hinder her from entering the heavenly kingdom. If therefore she had died then, it seems that she would have entered the gates of heaven. But this was not possible before the Passion of Christ, according to the Apostle (Heb. 10:19): "We have [Vulg.: 'having'] therefore a confidence in the entering into the Holies by His blood." It seems therefore that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb.

... Reply to Objection 3: The Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb from original sin, as to the personal stain; but she was not freed from the guilt to which the whole nature is subject, so as to enter into Paradise otherwise than through the Sacrifice of Christ; the same also is to be said of the Holy Fathers who lived before Christ.


ST IIIa Q. 27 — Aquinas 101
 

PuerAzaelis

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2016
479
233
NYC
✟184,410.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour 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.

CHURCH FATHERS: On Nature and Grace (St. Augustine)
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,139
33,267
✟583,952.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It's a doctrine made possible, for the few churches that accept it, by torturing one Bible verse that is translated "full of grace" in hardly any Bible translations other than the King James Version. Ironic, isn't it? ;)
 
Upvote 0

Bob Carabbio

Old guy -
Dec 22, 2010
2,271
568
82
Glenn Hts. TX
✟42,909.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour 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.

CHURCH FATHERS: On Nature and Grace (St. Augustine)

But in the final analysis, The REAL Mary, Mother of Jesus was simply a normal Jewish gal, no more "sinless" that you or I, and not a Born again Christian before the crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus.

She was chosen by God for a DIFFICULT MINISTRY, was obedient to Him, and which she discharged properly, and then went on to marry (by virtue of the joining of flesh) Joseph, and have his children as Biblically recorded. She obviously (like everybody else) didn't HAVE A CLUE (Mark 3:21) what Jesus was really all about until after she was Born again, and clued in by the Holy Spirit (John 20:22).

Simple as that.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

I stand with Candice.
Nov 23, 2013
7,118
2,741
PA
✟298,264.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The rejection of the Immaculate Conception started well after the Reformation...curious, isnt it. I think that once people started their path away from His Church, novel ideas started to be concocted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ironyUSA

Active Member
Mar 17, 2020
43
53
Whitehouse
✟20,857.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The rejection of the Immaculate Conception started well after the Reformation...curious, isnt it. I think that once people started their path away from His Church, novel ideas started to be concocted.

The meaning of the term "immaculate conception" seems to have changed from what the early patristic fathers taught. Yes, Mary is/was the Theotokos, but under the attack of Nestorian Christological controversies, I believe, the Mariology was skewed to overemphasize her role. I mostly agree with Bob, but I would say that she is Mary, Mother of God (Logos) lest we slip into low Christology.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

I stand with Candice.
Nov 23, 2013
7,118
2,741
PA
✟298,264.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
but under the attack of Nestorian Christological controversies, I believe, the Mariology was skewed to overemphasize her role.
her role was well defined by the Church Fathers well before the Nestorian heresy.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: JLHargus
Upvote 0

concretecamper

I stand with Candice.
Nov 23, 2013
7,118
2,741
PA
✟298,264.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Her role in patristic readings does not include an understanding of co-redeemer or co-redemtrix
the topic is Immaculate Conception.
. So, reading in context yes, she is Theotokos, but something changed along the way.
what has changed is the watering down of the protestant understanding of Mary.
 
Upvote 0

ironyUSA

Active Member
Mar 17, 2020
43
53
Whitehouse
✟20,857.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What's the opposite of watering down? Saturating? The term "immaculate conception" is implicated with different understandings over time, co-redeemer being one such example. The patristic fathers defended her role as the Theotokos to preserve a proper understanding of Christ's deity through the virgin birth. As certain aspects of Christology came under attack, such as Nestorianism, the early church expanded it's teachings regarding Mary not merely for the sake of Mariology. When did the Nestorian controversy start? What about the first of the reformation? When did the Council of Trent take place? When was the immaculate conception dogmatically defined?
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

I stand with Candice.
Nov 23, 2013
7,118
2,741
PA
✟298,264.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
St. Athanasius of Alexandria: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.”

Origen: "This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one."

Martin Luther: "God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus."

Present day Protestants
But in the final analysis, The REAL Mary, Mother of Jesus was simply a normal Jewish gal, no more "sinless" that you or I, and not a Born again Christian before the crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus.

She was chosen by God for a DIFFICULT MINISTRY, was obedient to Him, and which she discharged properly, and then went on to marry (by virtue of the joining of flesh) Joseph, and have his children as Biblically recorded. She obviously (like everybody else) didn't HAVE A CLUE (Mark 3:21) what Jesus was really all about until after she was Born again, and clued in by the Holy Spirit (John 20:22).

Simple as that.

Get the picture!
 
Upvote 0

ironyUSA

Active Member
Mar 17, 2020
43
53
Whitehouse
✟20,857.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ironic using a quote from Luther when convenient. Also, Athanasius is another excellent example to prove the point... The link below supports (pp. 9-10) the idea that Athanasius was more specifically defending against Arianism. Again, the reason for the veneration of Mary was an extension of Christological concern. Obviously "protestant" carries with it no implication of unified theology, but most of those that I'm aware affirm the virgin birth of Christ and His deity in hypostasis.

Mariology in the First Five Centuries: An Introduction to the Development of Mariology in the Early Church

Teachings like this seemed to emerge from the hyperbolic defenses removed from context:
Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918: “For with her suffering and dying Son, Mary endured suffering and almost death. She gave up her Mother’s rights over her Son to procure the salvation of mankind, and to appease the divine justice, she, as much as she could, immolated her Son, so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race.

Nope.

Let's define "immaculate conception" properly according to historical context and it has everything to do with Jesus and little to do with Mary.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

I stand with Candice.
Nov 23, 2013
7,118
2,741
PA
✟298,264.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ironic using a quote from Luther when convenient
Of course I quoted Luther. My post you responded to said the rejection of the IC started AFTER the reformation:doh:
Also, Athanasius is another excellent example to prove the point... The link below supports (pp. 9-10) the idea that Athanasius was more specifically defending against Arianism. Again, the reason for the veneration of Mary was an extension of Christological concern
I dont care. My point was that the rejection of the IC started AFTER the reformation.
Let's define "immaculate conception" properly according to historical context
Ok
it has everything to do with Jesus and little to do with Mary.
wrong conclusion.

There are many threads on this forum. Claims from non Catholics have been beaten down too many times for me to remember.

So, back to my point which you initially responded to.
The rejection of the Immaculate Conception started well after the Reformation...curious, isnt it. I think that once people started their path away from His Church, novel ideas started to be concocted
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,984
1,767
59
New England
✟558,517.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good Day,

As to the more modern Roman scholarship on this issue Raymond Brown note:

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

In Him,

Bill
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

I stand with Candice.
Nov 23, 2013
7,118
2,741
PA
✟298,264.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Good Day,

As to the more modern Roman scholarship on this issue Raymond Brown note:

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

In Him,

Bill
The same.Church that said the Gospel of Matthew is inspired, says Mary was Immaculately conceived.

Many people pick and choose which teaching they want to believe. I never really understood that logic.
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,984
1,767
59
New England
✟558,517.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The same.Church that said the Gospel of Matthew is inspired, says Mary was Immaculately conceived.

Many people pick and choose which teaching they want to believe. I never really understood that logic.



Good Day, CC

Yes the name claim it stuff is not very useful...

The Gospel of Matthew is expired because it is God-breathed out. Now if you need your Church to tell you that I guess if that works for you. I will say seems straight forward to me.

Yes you believe it based on the Church to which you are a member and that is fine.

I just find that Raymond brown is a little more convincing in this matter, he does not deny the Church teaches it nor do I. He just finds both ideas absent from history and scripture and he is correct.

Who is Raymond Brown:

"Raymond E. Brown, S.S., born in 1928 and ordained in 1953, has been recognized by universities in the U.S.A. and Europe by some twenty honorary doctoral degrees. He was appointed by Pope Paul VI to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and with church approval he has served for many years on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Time magazine once described him as 'probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S.,' and he is the only person to have served as president of all three of these distinguished societies: the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Society of New Testament Studies."


In Him,

Bill
 
Upvote 0