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
I don't see where Abraham was REWARDED for sleeping with Hagar.
The Adamic pattern of having only one wife is confirmed in Timothy, where they were to pick men for eldership who one had one wife, the Biblical pattern. Men with more than one wife (and that includes more than one mother-in-law) and those who were not Biblicaly divorced were not allowed to serve as elders or deacons.
Since we are on the subject, where is it found in the Bible that priests cannot be married?
***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.” ***
BTW - These points were really awesome!
Very Biblically sound.
Definitley seems to be a Type there.
(It doesn't speak to her sinlessness however.)
It is not that they can't be married, but Jesus Himself imparts to us in scripture that it's much better that they not be. This is also found in Paul's letters.
By not marrying, good priests are following the example Christ set by leading an chaste life focused on serving God.
You're willingness as of late to keep an open mind is quite refreshing. Thank you for brightening my morning.
Pardon me for waiting so long to reply to your post. I wanted to make sure I had my information straight before I replied. I emailed one of my college professors and his reply will be below your post.
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.
The most natural meaning of brother in Greek corresponds to that of English. However, the word can be used in a wide range of meaning. For example, Paul often addresses his Jewish audiences as "brothers," as he does at Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:15), and the Sanhedrin in Acts 22:1. Here it simply means something like "fellow Jew." The key is to consider the context. In Mark 6:3; 3:31-35; Matt 13:55-56, the words "brothers" and "sisters" occur in the context of his mother and father, making the usual use of the term to indicate immediate family members most likely. More likely, some Christians of the 3rd through 5th centuries were very moved by the Neo-Platonic view that the body is evil, and that spiritual concerns transcend the needs and pleasures of the body, reading back into the text those ascetic values. The spiritually superior deny the body, do not marry, and live a simple lifestyle in a monastery. I think later generations read those values back into the text of the New Testament, so surely Mary the mother of God did not endulge in sexual pleasure, even with her lawful husband. The contexts mentioning the brothers and sisters of Jesus are understood more naturally as brothers than cousins. The latter can be resorted to only when one has bought into the notion of an other worldy spirituality that denies the will of God expressed regarding marriage in Genesis 1-2.
What are the odds that when you say "literal reading" you actually mean your own contemporary reading of the word in English?
Was Lot Abraham's brother as a "literal reading" would make him?
SD
There's no "only" to be found in these verses. That's kind of the point. Sola Scripturists would like there to be an "only," a "sufficient" found in these verses.
But it isn't there.
To affirm that something is profitable in order to "complete" or "perfect" a person is not logically at all the same as saying only that something is profitable. Or that only that something is sufficient.
Upon these verses rest Sola Scriptura, so it is understandable that none want to examine them for what they actually say.
SD
Given the language the scripture was written in and/or first translated into, I'd say excellent.
Greek is really even more fundamental than that.
Obviously the New Testament was all written in Greek initially, but what about the Old?
Parts of it were originally composed in Greek.
And more importantly, the only compendium of Jewish Scriptures that would qualify as an ancient "Bible" in the time of Christ was the Septuagint. There was not, as yet, in the Jewish world a formal, settled canon, and the only full collection of Jewish Scriptures in use everywhere in the Jewish diaspora was the Greek Septuagint. When Jesus and the Apostles refer to the Scriptures, they are not referring to the Masoretic Text: there was not yet a Hebrew Canon. They were referring to the Septuagint. Greek was the primary OLD TESTAMENT language at the time of Christ as well as the language of the New Testament.
It isn't.
Paul does recommend the unmarried state at one point.
And Jesus says that there are some who give up sex for God ("become eunuchs for God" - Origen took this a bit too literally).
Paul says that married people are divided in their attentions, which is certainly true.
But the Bible does not say that priests need to be unmarried. Indeed, it say that they can only be married once, and to one woman. Priestly celibacy is a disciplinary rule of the Roman Catholic Church, put in place because the Church was convinced, by bad experience, that Paul comments about divided focus was correct. Christ and Paul set celibacy for the reign of God as an extremely high aspirational goal. The Church decided to make a rule for its clergy out of that aspirational goal.
It could, of course, change this rule. There is currently no strong argument to do so.
In haste, because I am at the office.... Your old college professor may have an academic's knowledge of Koine, but not of Church history. He seems to imply that the origins of the dogma of the Perpetual Vurginity of the Mother of God is later than the Fifth Century. In fact, we have Iconic proof that that is not so. The Icon of the Hodigitria is perhaps the oldest form extant, at the latest from the Third Century and by tradition even older. It shows the three stars on Mary denoting that she was, is and always will be a virgin. The Panagia, sometimes called Panagia Orans shows the same stars and is found throughout the old Roman world in catacombs and are contemporary with the use of the catacombs as hidden places of worship, thus pre mid Fourth Century. Sorry, your professor's Neo-Platonism theory just doesn't hold water. I'd have thought he'd have spoken about the virgin birth myths about pagan gods current at the time the Holy Tradition was developing. That is the usual Western "academic" response.
Just to be complete, there are priests in the Catholic Church's Eastern Rites who are indeed married. There are even a few converts in the Western Church (from Anglican or Lutheran) who were ordained as priests while retaining their wives.
So it's not a dogma. Just a well-established practice.
SD
Scripture always clarifies a name when the person is a major player.
How did you know that Lot wasn't Abraham’s sibling brother?
Because scripture clarified it in Genesis 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
There is no doubt left what their relationship was.
However if you don't read Matthew and Mark literally, concerning Jesus brothers, you end up in lala-land, requiring endless speculations just to support some tradition you have no idea where it even started.
JH :(
Scripture always clarifies a name when the person is a major player.
I guess then any useage that isn't "clarified" isn't a "major player."
You have sidestepped the point. The word "brother" in this context among the semitic peoples had a broader meaning than the word in general use in English. We need more information upon hearing the word "brother" than to automatically assume that they are co-uteral siblings. Or to assume that they are not.
So there is absolutely no reason to suspect that the Brothers of the Lord are co-uteral siblings. We know the word has a broader meaning. And we know that the exact meaning needs to be clarified in order for the ambiguity to be resolved.
And since the Bible nowhere resolves this ambiguity, by for instance calling James a son of Mary, why do you assume this one usage?
SD
Once again, and back to my original question, when you say to read it "literally" don't you really mean to assign it the modern English meaning of the word?
SD
You know the word brother has a broader meaning because it doesn't fit into your traditions.
And since the Bible nowhere resolves this ambiguity, by for instance calling James a son of Mary, why do you assume this one usage?
And it's just that reason the Bible nowhere resolves this ambiguity, because there is no ambiguity other then for those who are trying to wedge it into their puzzle when it doesn't fit.
Anyone who believes that Mary and Joseph had a perfectly normal marriage after Jesus was born, has no problem understanding Matthew and Mark's identification of Mary's birth children and Jesus brother's and sisters.
It's you who has the square block and the round hole, not me.
JH :)
Sorry, I won't get caught up in this play on words. There is absolutely no scriptural case for your argument that Mary remained ever virgin.
JH :)
No, we know the word "brother" has a broader meaning cause the Bible uses the very word in that way. You yourself admit that its use needs to be clarified.
So why do you assume a narrow meaning when it is entirely within reason that the broader meaning is intended? Semitic language doesn't even have seperate words for "brother" and "kin." Our attempts to choose one word or the other are because we can seperate the notions.
You need to heed the Bible and the existing lingustic and cultural traditions that demonstrate this very same thing in action.
The basic fact is that no matter how an American in the 21st Century reads the word "brother," what a semitic person meant by "brother" 2000 years ago is entirely different.
They don't share your presumptions. An American who points at someone and says "that is my brother" means one thing. A Hebrew 2000 years ago means something else. Your refusal to see this is typical of the myopic view of the Sola Scripturist.
SD
Oh but it does, many times.
Matthew 27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.
Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
Three times should be enough.
JH : )
That's a different Mary. You think so little of the Mother of the Lord that you think she would be referred to in a list 1) not in the first place listed and 2) as something other than "Mary the Mother of the Lord."
It's preposterous. And on this your argument hangs. That the Mother of Jesus is referred to as "The Mother of James and Joses"
Why not share your other thesis point, the one where she is referred to as "the other Mary"?
SD
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.