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
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?
"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!
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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).
In order that I might properly frame a reply, is your main argument from tradition or from the Greek text ?
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".
Studying the Bible, without understanding the traditions, early teachings, and Church history leaves the glass half-empty.
This is true.
The Orthodox have a particular authority in the discussion, and their voices are particularly welcome.
Well put.
A Catholic need not disagree with any of what you said, and frankly, shouldn't, because it is exceptionally well said.
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?
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.