It was a miracle.
Posted on 09/21/2004 7:43:13 AM PDT by Tantumergo
In discussing why we believe in the Immaculate Conception, it’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about in the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain — the meaning of "immaculate" being “without stain”. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a fallen nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.
While in the West the doctrine has been taught somewhat negatively – the emphasis being on Mary’s sinlessness - the East has tended to put the accent instead on her abundant holiness. The colloquial term for her is Panagia, the All-Holy; for everything in her is holy.
Although this doctrine is not explicitly stated in Scripture (as indeed the Trinity is not explicitly stated), there is much implicit evidence that the New Testament Church believed in the sinlessness and holiness of the Mother of God.
The primary implicit reference can 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. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.
The traditional translation, "full of grace," is more accurate than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which tend to render the expression "highly favoured daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favoured 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 a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, but rather it extended over the whole of her life. She must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."
However, this is not to imply that Mary had no need of a saviour. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way - by anticipation.
If we 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. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become subject to original sin and its stain.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Saviour than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner.
St. Luke also provides us with further evidence that the early Church believed in the sinlessness of Mary. In the first chapter of his gospel, he goes to great pains to recount the event of the Visitation in parallel terms to the recovery of the Ark of the Covenant by David in 2 Sam 6. The following contrasts are notable:
1) 2 Sam 6,2 “So David arose and went…set out for Baala of Judah” Lk 1,39 “And Mary rising up in those days, went…to a town of Judah”
2) 2 Sam 6,9 “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” Lk 1,43 “And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
3) 2 Sam 6,14 “And David danced with all his might before the Lord” Lk 1,44 “the infant in my womb leaped for joy.”
4) 2 Sam 6,11 “ And the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months.” Lk 1,56 “And Mary abode with her about three months.”
When taken in conjunction with Gabriel’s earlier promise to Mary that “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee.” (Lk 1,35) in similar language to that describing the descent of the Shekinah on the ark, it is clear that St. Luke considers Mary to be the fulfilment of the type of the Ark of the Covenant.
In Luke’s mind she is the ark of the New Covenant. Just as the old ark contained the Word of God written on stone, the bread from heaven in the form of manna, and the priestly staff of Aaron; so the new ark contains the Word of God enfleshed, the true bread of heaven, and the high priest of the New Covenant.
Up until its disappearance 500 years earlier the ark had been the holiest thing in all creation – even to touch it or look into it was to bring death or plagues on non-Levites. Similarly then, the ark of the New Covenant would have been viewed as the holiest created being by the early Jewish Christians. Mary’s holiness was by the specific design of heaven, just as the old ark was given as a specific design from heaven.
This understanding of Mary as the ark is not just limited to the Lucan tradition. We also find Johannine understanding of this teaching in the Apocalypse. If we omit the medieval chapter and verse numberings, we see that John’s vision, following the judgement of Jerusalem and the Old Covenant, reveals:
“And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his covenant was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. 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:” Apoc. 11,19-12,1
While some commentators see in the figure of the woman a corporate type of Israel or the Church, these can only be secondary meanings as the same vision reveals two other figures which both have primary individual identities: Satan and the woman’s child – Jesus Christ:
Apoc 12,3 “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: Apoc 12,9 “And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan.”
Apoc 12,5 “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.”
Thus many fathers of the Church as well as recent Popes have clearly identified the ark/woman as Mary, the Holy Mother of God. This should not be surprising as John is here recapitulating the whole of revelation. Not only is he portraying the breaking in of the New Covenant, but of the new creation itself. The early chapters of Genesis where we see the man and woman in conflict with the serpent at the beginning of the old creation, are now recapitulated with the new Adam and the new Eve in conflict with that same serpent, though this time with positive results. Revelation has come full circle with the final triumph of God over the devil through the woman and her seed as first foretold in Genesis 3,15.
This is why early fathers such as St Irenaeus, St Ephraim, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine could clearly identify Mary as the new Eve as well as the Ark of the Covenant. For in a way that Eve in her disobedience could only be physically the mother of all the living, Mary is now revealed as the true mother of all the living in Jesus Christ:
Apoc 12,17 “And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
It is only reasonable to conclude, then, that just as the first Eve was created without sin and filled with sanctifying grace, so the new Eve who was to “untie the knot of disobedience” wrought by the first, should be also so conceived. Or, as Cardinal Newman put it:
“Now, can we refuse to see that, according to these Fathers, who are earliest of the early, Mary was a typical woman like Eve, that both were endued with special gifts of grace, and that Mary succeeded where Eve failed?” Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception. Cardinal John Henry Newman.
Although arguments from authority can often be the weakest form of argument, as Catholics, it is worth finally pointing out that the ultimate reason for believing in the Immaculate Conception is that this doctrine has been infallibly defined as being revealed by God, and as such our salvation depends on adhering to it:
"Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honour of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart." Ineffabilis Deus, Bl. Pope Pius IX
The Church cannot contradict Scriptures - ever. Were that the case, Christ would have never founded His Church, His kingdom here on earth. Certainly He could have commanded, "Go forth and tell folks to read, so that by private interpretation, they may be saved", but He chose to command them to "Go forth and teach" - which is what they did and still do.
Ignorance of the Bible is indeed ignorance of Christ, but our knowledge and beliefs of its contents derives from the teaching authority that Christ bestowed on His Church to define and explain certain things that are hard to be understood and wrested by many to their own destruction as 2Peter 3:16 plainly states. Thats one of the great things God did for us so that we all know which direction to travel heavenward together - not left to drift aimlessly scattered here and there.
But the church contradicts the Bible all the time. There are no scriptures that gives Mary the status that the church does. Mary is NOT Co-redemtrix, nor was she immaculately concieved, you are NOT to pray to Mary, etc, etc, etc. None of those can be found in the Bible. They are traditions of the church, not scripture. And if they are not in scripture, they are WRONG.
What other children?
It was a miracle.
Scripture tells us that Jesus commands us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Do you eat his flesh and drink his blood or is your 'strict' reliance on Scripture applicable to only when you want to disparage the Mother of God?
Ted Turner playing a Catholic movie? Wow!
The Sunday sabbath is not in Scripture. It is an ancient tradition of the Church, nothing more. Is it "WRONG"?
By your definition, yes.
Monogamy is not in Scripture. Jesus does prohibit divorce, categorically, except in the case of adultery, but he does not prohibit a man from having more than one wife at a time. Nor does the Old Testament (adultery, under The Law, is a married woman having sexual relations with a man not her husband. A married man having sex with an unmarried woman is not adultery under The Law; it is fornication, which also is not good, of course. Polygamy is neither adultery nor fornications.)
Christian monogamy is a Greco-Roman tradition of the Church, and not biblical at all. Is it, therefore, WRONG?
By contrast, divorce is categorically PROHIBITED by Jesus Christ in the Gospels, except in the narrow case of lewd conduct. (Irreconcilable differences are not "lewd conduct".) Practically every modern Church permits divorce, in direct and explicit defiance not just of Scripture in general (which generally allows it), but in specific defiance of the most authoritative part of all Scripture: the direct words of God Incarnate when he spoke on Earth. As if the underline the point, the absolute prohibition on divorce appears in more than one Gospel. Are all churches that permit divorce in direct defiance of the explicit words of God WRONG?
I would think that if the Scripture is the ONLY standard, then you are wrong if you keep the Sunday sabbath: the ONLY sabbath is on Saturday. And you are wrong if you doctrinally prohibit polygamy: Scripture permits it. And your Church directly defies the explicit Word of God, directly from the mouth of God, unfiltered by any prophet, if it allows divorce.
All of this would follow from the standard you have set.
Since all Christian Churches keep the Traditional Sunday sabbath and ignore the Scriptural Saturday sabbath, and keep the Greco-Roman rule of monogamy and ignore the Hebrew Bible rule permitting polygamy, and most shockingly of all, most permit divorce! I think that we skate out on very thin ice if we pretend that ANY Christian Church's practices are completely Biblical, or that ANY Christian Church does not substitute Tradition for the old Biblical rule.
Sunday, monogamy and divorce are but three examples.
And it only takes one counterexample to disprove a rule.
From another post...
***This statement must be capable of admitting exceptions, because we see his disciple/secretary St. Luke asserting the following: Both were RIGHTEOUS IN THE EYES OF GOD, OBSERVING ALL THE COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES OF THE LORD BLAMELESSLY." ***
But it is clear from the context that Luke doesn't mean they were "sinless" and therefore exempt from the passage in Romans because immediately he recounts the story of Zechariah's unbelief...
"And Zechariah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time."
Luke 1:18-20
Zechariah was clearly punished because he "did not believe". He did something wrong and got rebuked for it by the angel. Lack of faith is a sin as Paul says here...
Romans 14:22
... For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
***If you want a precedent of a Saint who was sanctified from the womb...HE WILL BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT EVEN FROM HIS MOTHER'S WOMB,***
Truly he was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb, and Jesus calls him the greatest of all those born of woman, but this didn't render him "sinless". If John were "sinless" then why would he appeal to Jesus...
"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?""
Matt - 3:13-15
He recognized that he need to be baptized by Jesus.
I brought a cushion to Kneeling Vespers once. Does that count?
***According to Scripture, Job committed no sins***
Really?
Job 42
Then Job answered the LORD, and said... I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
"...repent in dust and ashes."
Only sinners repent.
***and the parents of John the Baptist also committed no sins (Luke 1).***
Again, not true. See post #169
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1222429/posts?page=169#169
***If Mary is the new Eve, then that would mean she is the bride of the New Adam, Jesus.***
Who is the Bride of Christ?
"For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."
The Church is the Bride of Christ.
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church:
To say that Mary is the mother AND wife of Christ is something the NT writers would have considered immoral and scandeous beyond measure...
1 Corinthians 5
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife."
Her children with her husband, Joseph.
Where in the Bible does it say that either Mary or Joseph had other children?
"While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." (Matt. 12:46,47) "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55). Unless you reply on some gnostic tradition, the plain reading of the text is that Mary and her other, natural children came to visit Jesus.
The text you posted refers to Jesus' brothers. Many biblical scholars have opined that the term brother can also mean cousin or close aquaintence. It can also be used as a term of endearment. For instance when I walk down the street and a homeless man says to me" "brother can you spare a dime", that doesn't make the man my natural brother.
So, back to what I origianlly asked you: can you provide a scriptural quote which refers to any other children of Mary or Joseph - not brothers of Jesus, but children of Mary or Joseph?
***I think that we skate out on very thin ice if we pretend that ANY Christian Church's practices are completely Biblical, or that ANY Christian Church does not substitute Tradition for the old Biblical rule. ***
That was EXACTLY my point. No church, including the Catholic church are perfectly Biblical.
Monogamy certainly is in scripture. God made Eve for Adam, not Eve and Sarah and Toni and Jane. This is the Biblical standard. Just because men in the Bible violated that does not mean it is ok. If so, I could kill my neighbor and take his wife (like David did).
Try finding ANY scripture that says to take more than one wife. You can't find any.
Romans 14:5-6 "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord." Sunday worship is permitted by scripture.
Divorce is permitted, but not encouraged under Christ's mandate. I know if no Reformed, Conservative Church that permits divorce. Divorce happens, as one case in my own church is happening, but both parties are being counciled, prayed for, and encouraged to reconcile. If one of them continues to proceed with the divorce, then they will be disciplined by the church. It is not permitted, but sometimes we have to deal with it.
In short, I think you are wrong in your accusation, but right in your conclusion; the churches are run by men who are sinners, therefore, sin will enter the church. We need to be dilligent in routing the errors (as Paul told us to do in 1 Cor. 5), and the only basis we have to judge ourselves is scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.