Why do we believe in the Immaculate Conception?

2nd March 2003 | Deacon Augustine

[JohnnyM]

If Mary is the new Eve, then that would mean she is the bride of the New Adam, Jesus. But not even you guys believe that. Your typology makes no sense if she is new Eve. How does Mary fulfill any of the typology of Eve?

JM

[JohnnyM]

"UNTIL doesn't necessarily imply anything"

It implies an event happening in the future. So if the Word says that Joseph kept Mary a virgin UNTIL she gave birth, that would imply that Mary lost her virginity sometime after the birth of Jesus. The Word of God does not use Words flippantly. For the Bible could have clearly said that Mary remained a virgin or that Joseph never "knew" her. Or a host of different things to that effect. But the Holy Spirit in His wisdom chose to use those words. Now could you show me Scripture where Mary was "Immaculately" conceived???

JM

[asformeandformyhouse]

Forget about trying to interpret what a word means - the Church has already supplied the interpretation, as related in:

Ah yes, but please continue on in 2 Peter:

21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Peter is speaking of Old Testament prophecy. Even though he readily admits that there will be future heresies advocated. Anyway, I don't see the church being spoken of in this passage. He was speaking of the prophets.

[Tantumergo]

"I would however like to know what reason is there to ignore the natural reading of brother = literal brother."

Because until very recently, all Christians believed that Mary was perpetually virgin. Therefore the Scripture was interpreted in the light of this common, ancient belief and thus "brother" was never understood in its literal physical sense.

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed and defended her perpetual virginity, and this doctrine was never part of the original Catholic vs. Protestant controversy. It was something that all were agreed on.

That it has become an issue in more recent times is probably due to the way the English language has developed over the last few hundred years. Words change their force, meaning, and latitude of interpretation over time. e.g. what do the words "gay" and "wicked" mean in colloquial speech now compared to 100 years ago?

[asformeandformyhouse]

Scripture is completely silent about the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. and yet you would consider me mad if I suggested we therefore believe it to be still standing, as it is a fact that the temple was so destroyed. The Church's doctrine about the Mother of God is similarly factual and therefore cannot be denied without denying Truth Himself.

The destruction of the temple in AD 70 was spoken of many times in prophecy. But your reasoning is in even greater shambles. I do not argue that silence (if it existed) concerning the temple should be used to prove that it still remains. I argue that silence (if it existed) concerning the temple does not allow me to formulate my own opinion concerning the temple and teach it as the word of God. I understand that catholics do not base their beliefs on scripture, but if they are confident in this aspect, neither should they attempt word games to make scripture support their already held doctrine.

[UsnDadof8]

Because until very recently, all Christians believed that Mary was perpetually virgin.

Right. Yeah. Okay.

First of all your premise is wrong. But even if we assume it to be right, what you're saying is that we should let our opinions overrule the plain assertions of scripture.

[Tantumergo]

"I assumed that explanation wasn't really to the faithful, but to those outside your denomination."

Actually it was an essay written for a Dean of Studies at a Catholic seminary! (God bless his cotton socks).

I simply posted it because a person in process of conversion to Catholicism had expressed a need for some further information about the doctrine. As they come from an evangelical background like myself, I thought that it might help.

I wasn't intending to try and convert all you sola scriptura types!! ;)

[asformeandformyhouse]

I wasn't intending to try and convert all you sola scriptura types!! ;)

Let me also add my clarification. I was working under the same assumption as xzins.

[Tantumergo]

"If Mary is the new Eve, then that would mean she is the bride of the New Adam, Jesus."

Correct - spiritually she is His bride as well as His mother, for she is also both a type and Mother of the Church.

"How does Mary fulfill any of the typology of Eve? "

What does the word "Eve" mean?

[Tantumergo]

"I understand that catholics do not base their beliefs on scripture, but if they are confident in this aspect, neither should they attempt word games to make scripture support their already held doctrine."

On the contrary, Catholics believe that Holy Scripture is the very soul of sacred theology. But Scripture itself tells us to hold fast to all the tradtions that we have received from the Apostles.

If by "word games" you are referring to typology, I think you will find we have a very good precedent in the authors of the NT, and the semitic tradition generally.

[Claud]

He is the Doctor of the Church who beautifully let us know that Saint Cleophas was the brother of Saint Joseph. This explains why Saint James, Saint Simon and Saint Jude, the sons of Saint Cleophas, and Saint James the Greater and Saint John, his grandsons, are referred to as "the bretheren of Our Lord."

There's been something I've been ruminating over, perhaps some of you can contribute your thoughts so bear with me a moment. As Stubborn stated, the "brethren of the Lord", though Greek "adelphoi", is believed to be a literal translation of whatever the Aramaic/Hebrew is for brother, with its wider semantic application (brother, cousin, etc.).

However, in apologetics I've also used the argument that when the translators of the Septuagint translated "alma" from the Hebrew (which can mean virgin or maiden), they translated it specifically as "parthenos" which means "virgin". Their translation, then, was a key to the original intent of the passage: namely, when they were permitted to use a language that actually *had* the semantic distinction, they made use of it. If they hadn't used it, and just used a word that meant "maiden", it could be argued that they were showing that no literal virginity was implied in the passage.

Aren't the alma and "brothers of the Lord" argument mutually exclusive? That is, if the LXX translators chose the best Greek word to fit the Hebrew *intent*, and not necessary the literal word, why would the Gospel writers not have done the same and used the Greek word for "cousin" instead of "brother". I suppose you can argue it's a Semiticism...and TantumErgo said it is common NT usage in post #12. But the whole thing rather confuses me, because at the face of it, it looks a bit a priori.

It's because of these difficulties that (despite being a staunch Latin) I tend more toward the Eastern tradition that St. Joseph had childred by a previous marriage. But I'm open to change my mind :) Just trying to shore up the apologetic here so as not to get caught with our pants down.

[Tantumergo]

"First of all your premise is wrong."

Then perhaps you can enlighten me as to when any Christian first started to question her perpetual virginity?

"But even if we assume it to be right, what you're saying is that we should let our opinions overrule the plain assertions of scripture."

Ah, but your claim that it is the plain assertion of scripture is only your opinion. Why should your opinion have more weight than 2,000 years of consistent Tradition?

[chronotrigger]

I see this as nothing but the doctrine of "legalism." (making up practices and beliefs that are not solidly backed up in the new testament). For all the quotes you provided, none directly come out and say that she was sinless-and you would think that such an important thing would be proclaimed numerous times throughout the text (as it is with Christ). I may be wrong, but a catholic once told me that early Christians elevated the status of Mary (immaculate conception) in order to appeal to the pagan, matriarchal tribes of northern Europe. In that case, the church altered the new testament and distorted its true meaning.

[xzins]

I'm a sola scriptura type, but I'm more a "sola everything that comes out of the mouth of God" type.

[chronotrigger]

"Mary was immaculately conceived, and did not inherit the original sin coming down from Adam and Eve. Why, then, did she die?"

nuff said.

[Ciexyz]

because Bernadette of Lourdes testified to it.

[JohnnyM]

"Correct - spiritually she is His bride as well as His mother, for she is also both a type and Mother of the Church."

How incestuous. Also, Mary is NOT my mother. Neither physically nor spiritually.

JM

[redgolum]

The perpetual virginity of Mary has historically been a Lutheran view, but it wasn't ever a "dogma", since the Bible is a bit ambiguous about it (hence why we are having this discussion).

While many Lutheran bodies don't touch on Mary that much, we still have a feast day for the birth of Mary (just recently) and treat her with a lot of respect as the most blessed woman in history.

After Vatican I in 1870, most Lutheran churches began to tone down any overt mention of Mary in the liturgy.

[Lilllabettt]

You are reading the word "until" in your cultural way. To us, the word until implies a future event.

But the writers of the Testaments, Old and New, were Jews. They used the word "until" in their cultural way; in many cases to convey a sense of the eternal. So, within the Bible, you may find curious phrases like:

"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children untill the day of her death"(2 Sam. 6:23). She did not have any children AFTER hear death either, though that is what OUR understanding of the word 'until' implies. When the Jews read the word "until", they knew the authors meant "ever".

[Tantumergo]

"That is, if the LXX translators chose the best Greek word to fit the Hebrew *intent*, and not necessary the literal word, why would the Gospel writers not have done the same and used the Greek word for "cousin" instead of "brother"."

Good question, but it could be equally asked of the LXX using the word for "brother" to describe Abraham and Lot. Why would they do it unless they intended carrying over the semiticism into the Greek?

Bearing in mind that the authors of the LXX and the NT were all semites, and thought like semites - with a "non-nuclear" view of family relationships - we are probably demanding a bit much of them to have anticipated the objections of English speaking moderns some 2000 years later.

All I can suggest for further re-inforcement of the Tradition is to speak with an Arab and ask him how many brothers he has. I am not being flippant here - I know an Israeli Arab and I also am familiar with a congregation of Melkite Arabs. Once you get them started, it all makes perfect sense! (Getting them to stop can be another thing entirely!)