Posted on 12/08/2005 9:35:44 AM PST by NYer
You can "sola" your "scriptura" all you want. Your premise of sola scriptura is non-biblical.
Knock yourself out, PM. This exegesis of Scripture is MY belief. If you disagree, by whose Authority do you speak (it always comes down to that, don'tcha think?).
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp
How to Defend the Immaculate Conception
By Jason Evert
This Rock
Volume 12, Number 2 February 2001
1. Why does the Church teach that Mary was immaculately conceived? Her conception is never even mentioned in Scripture.
Before presenting the scriptural foundations for the Church’s belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception, know that the person who is posing this question to you is probably operating with the three following misconceptions: (1) The doctrine infringes upon the universality of Christ’s redemption and the unique holiness of God. (2) The Church has no scriptural foundation for the teaching. (3) If any doctrine is not in Scripture it must not be true. Any adequate defense of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception is incomplete unless all three of these areas are addressed.
The first issue that you need to cover is sola scriptura—the idea that the Bible is the only rule of faith. In order to understand the flaws of this theory, familiarize yourself with the Catholic Answers tract at www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/proving.htm. One of the reasons why our separated brethren have difficulty accepting certain Marian teachings is that they do not understand the scriptural role of sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.
The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:25, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Luke 10:16).
Besides historical evidence and the authority of Tradition, several biblical texts can be offered. In Genesis 3:15, God states that there is to be an enmity between the "woman" and the serpent, and this enmity is shared between her seed and its seed. Her seed is the messiah, who stands in opposition to the seed of the serpent. The mother of the messiah is said to share the same enmity—total opposition—with Satan. If Mary, "the woman" had any sin, then she would not be in complete opposition to the devil. Some argue that the "woman" refers to Eve, but this can not be the complete meaning of the text, as Eve is always associated with her collaboration with the serpent, not her opposition to him. Only Mary, the new Eve, fits the description of the woman in Genesis 3:15.
An implicit reference can also be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary in Luke 1:28: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you." 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. 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. This means that the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was not only as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."
Over the centuries, the Fathers and doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the Ark of the Covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the Ten Commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (an instrument of Israel’s redemption). If this box was created with such honor—to carry a stick, some bread, and stone tablets—how much more should Mary be made a worthy dwelling place for God himself? She is the new Ark of the Covenant because she carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the instrument of our redemption, Jesus’ body.
Some argue that the new ark is not Mary but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would seem to be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box and not sanctifying the womb who carried the Holy One himself. After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin" (Wis. 1:4 [NAB]).
2. If Mary is sinless, doesn’t that make her equal to God?
If this question is posed to you, it opens up a wonderful opportunity to show how the Immaculate Conception of Mary glorifies God.
Many people are under the impression that one is not quite human if he or she is sinless. On the contrary, it is when we sin that we fall short of what it means to be fully human. Since we are made in the image and likeness of God, we are called to love as God loves. This is why Christ fully reveals man to himself, as Vatican II says. He shows us what it means to be perfectly human.
In the beginning, God created no one (neither angel nor human) with sin, and yet no one was equal to God. When Adam and Eve sinned, they acted in a manner that was beneath their dignity as beings made in God’s image and likeness. It was their sin that detracted from the glory of God, not their original sinlessness. God’s goodness is most clear when he sanctifies his creation by entering into it fully with the life of his grace.
This is why the sinless souls in heaven give the most glory to God. The unique glory of the Trinity is manifested most clearly in heaven—where is he surrounded by sinless beings. In their sinlessness, God has made them most fully what he intended for them to be. In Mary’s case, her sinlessness gives the most glory to God, since his work is made perfect in her. She is his masterpiece.
3. How could Mary be sinless if in the words of the Magnificat she said that her soul rejoices in God her savior?
The Church does not hesitate to profess that Mary needed a savior. This should be the first issue to address if this question arises. It was by the grace of God—and not the work of Mary—that she was saved from sin in a most perfect manner. By what is called "preservative redemption," Mary was preserved from sin at the time of her natural conception. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15), and Mary was sanctified at her conception. It is no difficulty that Christ distributed the grace of Calvary some forty-five years or so before it happened, just as he bestows it upon us two thousand years after the fact. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that this gift was given to Mary, making her "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
God can "save" a person from a sin by forgiving them, or by providing them the grace never to fall into that particular sin. An ancient analogy is often useful to explain this: A person can be saved from a pit in two ways; one can fall into it and be brought out, or one can be caught before falling into it. Mankind is saved in the first manner, and Mary in the second. Both are saved from the pit of sin. If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him?
4. How can you reconcile Mary’s sinlessness with Paul’s statement that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?
Though Paul is making a generalization of all humanity, Protestants and Catholics alike would agree that there are exceptions. For example, a child below the age of reason is not capable of committing actual sin. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the epistle to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).
Jesus is another significant exception to the rule, having been exempt from actual and original sin (Heb. 4:15). If Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the new Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the new Eve (Mary) can also be made.
5. Didn’t the Church just invent the doctrine 150 years ago?
Pope Pius IX officially defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the Pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. (For abundant evidence that the sinlessness of Mary is not a new idea in the Church, visit www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/_fullgra.htm).
Doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf.. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her. By understanding the work that God has done in Our Lady, all should have greater appreciation for both him and her. For if one member of the body is honored, all should share in its joy (1 Cor 12:26).
When we are in-dwelt with the Ruach haKodesh,
He will illuminate the Holy Word of G-d for us.
For without the illumination of the Ruach haKodesh:
2Co. 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.
2Co. 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so
that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of
Christ, who is the image of God.
b'shem Y'shua
"Your premise of sola scriptura is non-biblical. "
It *IS* Biblical. Care to see?
"by whose Authority do you speak (it always comes down to that, don'tcha think?"
In all honesty, there is really no other quetion.
"The mere fact that the Church teaches that something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true "
Fine example of circular reasoning.
I can give you an answer to every "argument" in the doc you posted but I don't want to write a tome. Would you care to pick one to begin?
I'll lead with the three of clubs. ;-o)
Have a happy and holy Christmas, friend! Let's part in peace, but let's do part, indeed!
Frank
There is no devaluing going on here. If anything, Protestants devalue Tradition moreso than anyone. Past that, they tend to elevate their devotion to the Bible almost to the point of idolatry.
Also, everything you pointed out is from the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation) and applies to that book.
"Have a happy and holy Christmas, friend! "
Same to you!
"If anything, Protestants devalue Tradition moreso than anyone."
We do not value it on par with the Holy Scriptures. Scripture is fixed - written in black and white forever. When you read Scripture you are reading the very words the dropped form the pen of the Apostles themselves.
Tradition, by it's very nature, is subject to drift.
Have you ever studied Jesus' attitude towards the written and oral Torah's in the NT? He dismissed the oral Torah - the Jewish Saced Tradition out of hand. He ALWAYS makes his point from "what is written".
"Also, everything you pointed out is from the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation) and applies to that book."
If proves that Jesus DID command people to write things down.
It may be Hindu, but it is also Christian. St. Peter calls his readers "partakers of the Divine Nature," and it was St. Athanasius, I believe, who said "God became man so that man might become God." (Not "gods," mind you -- God, as in united to God.) Theosis is Christian. Don't blame me if it isn't Protestant Christian.
The Christian ideal, as I understand it, is COMMUNION with God. We retain our own nature and personality, even as we commune with God.
I don't know about that. The "retain our own nature and personality" part, I mean. Our identity, yes. And certainly we continue to have a nature that belongs to us. But it isn't "retained"; it's glorified and perfected.
Considering how transcendent God is, the gap between Him and Mary is far vaster than the gap between Mary the mother of Jesus and my late sister Mary.
That's clearly true.
Any attempt to give one dead human some kind of heavenly status over another dead human, as far as us living humans are concerned, impresses me as idol-making.
I can't accept your definition of "idol-making," especially when the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that every saint in heaven isn't equal in status or glory with every other saint in heaven.
What part of hypostatic union do you not get? She is the mother of the hypostatic union. But what is the hypostatic union? Not an abstract thing but a single, undivided Person in two natures, the Second Person. Not two Persons either, but one, because only one was incarnated.
It's empirical fact that there's been far less doctrinal drift in those Christian groups who revere Sacred Tradition than in those who claim to follow "the Bible alone".
Compare what LCMS Lutherans believe with what Seventh-Day Adventists believe, on the one hand, then compare what Roman Catholics believe with what Eastern Orthodox believe, on the other, if you don't believe me. Rome and Constantinople have been separated for almost 1000 years.
"No. What did I ever write that said anything remotely like that?"
By stating that I was a heretical Nestorian or Tritheists in response to my comment, "Because to do so would be imprecise. Mary is not the "mother" of God the Father not is she the "mother" of God the Holy Spirit."
By calling me a heretic based on my statement are you not clearly expressing your disagreement with that statement????
Would you care to review the statement and revise your response?
"It's empirical fact that there's been far less doctrinal drift in those Christian groups who revere Sacred Tradition than in those who claim to follow "the Bible alone""
Doctrinal drift from what? The teaching of the early Church? That would be something you would need to prove. Protestants base contention is that the RCC has drifted from the simplicity of the early Church.
"Compare what LCMS Lutherans believe with what Seventh-Day Adventists"
Bad comparison. There are a large number of Protestants who believe SDA to be a borderline cult.
"on the one hand, then compare what Roman Catholics believe with what Eastern Orthodox believe"
You mean differences like: Papal infallibility, immaculate conception, development of doctrine, original sin, purgatory, the filioque, equality of bishops...
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
Doctrinal drift from each other. The teaching of the early church is ultimately what's at issue here, but the teaching of e.g., two contemporary Christian groups can be fairly accurately known.
Bad comparison. There are a large number of Protestants who believe SDA to be a borderline cult.
Which substantiates my claim that "the Bible alone" leads to doctrinal divergence.
You mean differences like: Papal infallibility, immaculate conception, development of doctrine, original sin, purgatory, the filioque, equality of bishops...
And similarities like the seven sacraments, the canon of Scripture, the Apostolic succession of bishops, baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the infallible authority of Ecumenical Councils, the use of images in worship, the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, prayer to saints, prayer for the dead, the sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic Liturgy, the recognition of the validity of each others' Holy Orders ...
Not once do they share the name of their sect.
Why?
That would make it possible for us to be specific to respond in kind. That shows a great lack of courage and -- perhaps -- a lack of faith in their own particular sect.
I was hoping that you understood this based on your faithful postings to other threads, but I wanted to make sure that you and anyone reading your post understood that the first part of the statement you were agreeing with was completely contrary to Church doctrine. Sadly, the quality of catechesis in this country has fallen so far that even a faithful and well meaning Catholics may be sincerely confused about this critical point of Mary's sinlessness. Between protestant mischaractorizations of Catholic positions and our own loud mouthed Catholic dissenters, we can't take anything that could lead people astray for granted.
"but I wanted to make sure that you and anyone reading your post understood that the first part of the statement you were agreeing with was completely contrary to Church doctrine."
Amazing how Campion can basically quote the Scriptures verbatium and yet be told that his statement is "completely contrary to Church doctrine".
Campion:
"NO one is sinless, NO ONE - that is why ALL need Christ, even Mary."
Paul:
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one... For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"
(Rom 3)
"when official Catholic teaching states that abuse of Mary's name violates the 2nd Commandment "
Interesting. Where is that?
Yet, Christ Himself is not recorded as having ever written anything. Neither did more than five of the original 12 Apostles write anything. They were not commissioned to "write"; they were commissioned to "teach." That teaching is not of an identitiy with writing is discernable from God's own providence for His Church. Were the two of an identical character, God would have seen to it that all of the apostles had taken pen to parchment or pen to papyrus and allowed themselves to be led by divine inspiration, as the actual New Testament writers had been.
In any event, the Church was already developing oral traditions long before St. Paul wrote the first words of the New Testament (or even if St. Matthew did!). Paul even alludes to one in Acts 20:35. It is silly to suppose that all of the original oral teaching of the Church found its way into the New Testament. John 21:25 alone says as much.
That you and others chafe at the supposition that certain things practiced by Catholics aren't explicitly found in Scripture makes no difference to us. We follow the traditions of the Church handed down through the ages, because we know that the essential charism of the Church is to teach, not necessarily to write. It is very telling that most of the traditions Catholics have are shared, perhaps with different emphases, but shared nevertheless, by the Orthodox, from whom we are separated nearly 500 years longer than from you. But there was no impetus on the part of the Orthodox to throw tradition out the window, so it has been largely kept intact. That the two apostolic faiths have so much in common, even after a 1000 year separation, demonstrates that the "innovations" of Catholicism used by the proto-Protestants of the 1500's as an excuse to chuck tradition were not innovations at all. Those held in common between Catholics and Orthodox were already, by definition, at least 450 years old by Luther's time, though, of course they were much older than that.
The argument is always made that such-and-such teaching of Catholics cannot be found in the Bible. Usually, that's not the case. But, on occasion, there is some truth to the claim. But so what? How does Protestantism, arriving on the scene 3/4 of the way from Christ to the present day, justify the disavowal of tradition or the continuous teaching office of the Church? Especially when no specific warrant for such an action can be found in the Bible, which is their *only* source of Christian truth? The two apostolic faiths are a constant witness against this mindset. How reckless a mentality to assume that authority for this suddenly developed! Where authority became a vacuum, new authority had to flow into its place. Endless division is the fruit, and will be till the end of time, or the end of the divisions. There is no middle option.
Correct. But you missed the point. It says that had Mary not been saved by grace through Immaculate Conception then Jesus would have inherited original sin from his mother. Since God cannot inherit original sin then Mary needed to by saved by Grace through the Holy Ghost by Immaculate Conception.
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.