Why do we believe in the Immaculate Conception?

2nd March 2003 | Deacon Augustine

[visually_augmented]

Was Mary sinless? Here is a scripture below that might suggest otherwise:
Luke 2:46-49
46 Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers. 48 When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You." 49 And He said to them, "Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father's house?"

The way I read this scripture, Mary is either offended by Christ or reprimanding Him for not telling His parents where He was going. So either Christ sinned (which we know is impossible) by not telling His parents, or Mary wrongly scolded her son (V.48).

How do you read and interpret these verses? Do you agree with my assertion?

[JohnnyM]

Show me the passage that says Job was sinless. There is a dinstinct difference between being righteous and sinless. After believing in Christ I take on His righteousness so that I may, with assurance, enter into the Holy of Holies as stated in Hebrews, but I am most assuradly not sinless.

JM

[Kolokotronis]

I must have missed something in school as a kid. Does the Roman Church teach that the Holy Thetokos is the bride of Christ? There is an ancient service on Great Monday and Great Tuesday in the Orthodox Holy Week called the Nymphios Service where the Church is presented as the Bride of Christ, not Panagia. There is even an Icon for the feast, which, alas, I don't know how to post.

[JohnnyM]

The Catholic equates Mary as the new Eve. Eve was the bride of Adam. Therefore, Mary the new Eve, must be the bride of Jesus Christ, the new Adam. That is where their typology leads them.

JM

[Kolokotronis]

You clearly don't know koine Greek. The fact of the matter is that Greek speaking Christians from the beginning have always held that the "brothers" of Christ you refer to were cousins or, more likely, step brothers. Why would they have not understood their own language? It is just a little irritating to a Greek that native English speaking Christians, most of whom know no Greek (or at best have a "bible college" knowledge of it) and none of whom speak it as their first language, insist on squeezing koine into an English straight jacket.

[JohnnyM]

Oh, one more bit of typology, since we are on the subject. Eve came forth from Adam and NOT vice versa.

JM

[Tantumergo]

"But it is clear from the context that Luke doesn't mean they were "sinless""

Luke says they were righteous in the eyes of God and blameless - how then could they have been sinful? This is not at all logical.

"because immediately he recounts the story of Zechariah's unbelief..."

Yes, sure! Zechariah messes up at this point, but you have conveniently forgotten Elizabeth - where does it say that she suddenly lost her righteousness in the eyes of God and became a sinner???

If you spin away the words of scripture here, about Zechariah's righteousness (up to this point), you miss the point that Luke is making. He deliberately sets out to contrast Zechariah and Mary in their response to the annunciations of the baptist's and Christ's births respectively:

a) Both are identified as righteous or full of grace

b) Both are visited by the angel Gabriel

c) Both are troubled by the vision

d) Both are told not to fear

e) Both object

f) Both are promised a sign to confirm the annunciation

And yet one did not believe, and one did believe. Both were righteous: one was righteous by observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly, yet he did not believe. The other was righteous because she was FULL OF GRACE and she did believe.

Moral : Blessed is she who BELIEVED THROUGH GRACE for faith and salvation do not come through the observance of the works of the law, but through GRACE.

This is St. Paul's and St. Luke's main point presented for us in a nutshell right at the beginning of the Gospel.

If you deny St. Luke's statement that Zechariah was righteous, by claiming he was sinful, then you negate a major point that St. Luke wants to make.


"If John were "sinless" then why would he appeal to Jesus...
......
He recognized that he need to be baptized by Jesus."

The fact that he recognised he needed to be baptised by Jesus does not imply that he was a sinner. If this logic were to be applied, then Jesus' insistence on being baptised by John would imply that Jesus was a sinner. I'm sure you don't believe this!

[Tantumergo]

"The Church is the Bride of Christ."

And as members of the Church we are espoused to Christ. Do you not believe that Mary is a member 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..."

How shocking - it might even have reminded them of Holy Scripture:

Is 62,5 "For as a young man marries a virgin,
so shall your sons marry you,
and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
so shall your God rejoice over you."

[Vicomte13]

Job 1.
The very beginning of Job tells us that Job was sinless, and followed the entirety of The Law.

Of course, Job is a literary figure, probably not a real person, so one can read Job as setting out the case of the perfect sinless man (who didn't really exist) and then show him being tormented by the Devil anyway, as a test from God. That was probably the author's point. Whatever his point, and whatever the historicity of Job, Job 1 starts by telling us that Job was sinless.

The parents of John the Baptist were presumably real people, and Luke opens his gospel by telling us in the first chapter that they were sinless.

Anyway, I really don't mean to belabor this, nor the point about Sunday being utterly unbiblical (it is). This thread was about Catholic concepts of Mary. We diverted into questions of Tradition versus Scripture for some reason. Scripture IS Tradition. It is the written tradition of Christianity. Different parts of Christianity use different canons of Scripture, and that selection of what constitutes the Bible in the first place is itself a matter of Tradition.

One of the best argument FOR the adoration of Mary being a good and proper thing that pleases God is neither traditional nor Scriptural but empirical. The Shrine at Lourdes is dedicated utterly to the devotion to Mary, specifically. And there is no other place in all the world where there have been so many utterly miraculous or simply marvellous healings to occur on a steady, consistent basis. There is an international medical examining committee there that collects data and keeps files on these things, and the volume of healings that occur there, including things that are not medically explicable, is staggering. Obviously the healing of the blind, or the recovery of paralytics, or the complete instantaneous remission of cancer and the like, all of which have been medically documented to happen at Lourdes (I encourage you to read the medical reports from the committee, which are available online), are not possible without the grace of God. And obviously if God was OFFENDED at the veneration of Mary - as argued by some - He would not permit Lourdes to be the greatest continual fountain of miracles and marvels visible in our day on Earth. Given that Lourdes exists, given that thousands of cures happen there, given that it is devoted to Mary, and given that faith healings cannot take place without both true faith on the part of the beleiver, and a responding act of grace by God, God clearly establishes his grace over Lourdes (and nowhere else to that degree), and Lourdes is utterly dedicated to the praise of His Mother.

Why does God do this?
We cannot fully say (although we can guess that God approves of those who venerate His mother). But we can say, from the thousands of healings, that God DOES approve of Lourdes.

So, if we cannot sort things out Scripturally on Mary, we can look in our day and see God performing open miracles and marvels in a place devoted utterly to His mother, proving empirically - despite the silence of Scripture - that God approves of the veneration of his Mother. (Can the Devil cure the sick, restore the paralytic, give sight to the blind? Jesus suggested not. At Lourdes those things happen, proving the grace of God here, now, there.)

Given Lourdes, the best approach to Mary if one does not wish to venerate her, is respectful silence. God obviously favors those who venerate His mother, and I cannot imagine that God is ever going to be too terribly pleased with anyone who starts picking on His mom.

Spiritually, the safest approach to objection to Mary is silence. Direct attacks are responded to by God, at Lourdes. And even though Lourdes is not in the Bible, it clearly exists, God's grace is clearly there, and such a visible demonstration of God's living grace should make us wonder, revere, and resist the urge to be divided over the issue of His mother. Nobody ever stored up grace in Heaven with God by picking on His mother. Just let it go. For your own good. Really.

[kosta50]

Was Mary sinless? Here is a scripture below that might suggest otherwise: Luke 2:46-49

The incident in John 2:1 has also been quoted at times as Scriptural evidence that Mary was indeed human. Orthodox Christianity holds that she was cleansed of all sin at the Annunciation (her acceptance) and at her death.

If, as a human, she could be sinless all on her own, she would not be truly human. If she were made sinless from the moment of her conception, her holiness wouldn't be the supreme example of her humanity.

[kosta50]

The fact of the matter is that Greek speaking Christians from the beginning have always held that the "brothers" of Christ you refer to were cousins or, more likely, step brothers

Many cultures (Serbian, Greek, Arabic, Hebrew etc.) to this date use the term "brothers" and "sisters" for first or even second cousins. In many cultures, children address adults unrelated to the family as "uncle" or "aunt" in place of "Mr" or "Mrs". Thus, for example in Serbian culture a qualification is made only when questioned as to which type of "brothers" they are and the answer is "borther of aunt" (brat od tetke).

It is only in the Western cultural settings that this custom is alien, which is then erroneously interprted leading to grave misunderstanding of the Bible.

[JohnnyM]

"The very beginning of Job tells us that Job was sinless, and followed the entirety of The Law. "

No it does not. Hear is the verse:
Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.

Job 1:8 - The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil."

No where in these passages does it say Job was sinless. It said he was a blameless and upright man. These terms to do no equate to sinlessness.

Now lets use another example of a blameless and upright man: Noah. Gen 6:9 - Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

Very similar to how Job was described. Now lets check out Gen 9:20-21
20 Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard.
21 He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent.

Not exactly the actions of a sinless man.

JM

[Vicomte13]

Blameless = sinless; unless one wishes to adopt the position that there are sins that carry with them no blame.
Original sin would qualify, I suppose, but I can't think of any other.

Also of interest, Job gives us an example of one man's prayers and sacrifices atoning for another's sins (he offers for the sins of his children).

[UsnDadof8]

In order that I might properly frame a reply, is your main argument from tradition or from the Greek text ?

[biblewonk]

Yup, that's the line I always hear. "I have 2000 years of knowledge and less than 20 hrs of personal bible study therefore I know way more than you".

[frog_jerk_2004]

Studying the Bible, without understanding the traditions, early teachings, and Church history leaves the glass half-empty.

[Vicomte13]

This is true.
The Orthodox have a particular authority in the discussion, and their voices are particularly welcome.

[Vicomte13]

Well put.
A Catholic need not disagree with any of what you said, and frankly, shouldn't, because it is exceptionally well said.

[Vicomte13]

I read a mother scared to death that something happened to her child when he disappeared, and scolding him for running off without telling her. I see no sin in that at all. Jesus was her boy, as young and defenseless and dependent as any other boy. It was her job as a mother to look after him and take care of him, like any other mother. And like any other mother, if her boy runs off somewhere for days, she was likely to be panicked, and likely to tell him to never, ever do that to her again.
Where is there anything approaching sin in that?
Does a mother sin when she tells her child not to run away?

[Kolokotronis]

Both actually, and a third; First, Greek was my first language, or at worst contemporaneous with English. I've read, spoken and studied ancient, modern and koine Greek all my life (well, I haven't spoken ancient, except to confuse profssors in college many, many years ago!)Tradition developed from the people who wrote and spoke the Greek text. The same Tradition determined what became the Canon of the NT. English is a limited language when it comes to Christian theology. Even Latin is, though not so limiting as English. For example, what does "omoosios tou Patri" mean in English?