# Immaculate Conception: Am I dreaming or is this article ridiculous?



## matthew11v25 (May 2, 2005)

I got this off of CatholicAnswers.net.

Question: Is this the best that Rome can do? Do they "bank" everything off of church history/tradition?

This article seems WEAK!!! 



> 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 the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain"”that´s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt 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.
> 
> ...



I cannot remember if it was ok to post this kind of stuff?


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by matthew11v25_
> But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. 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 letter 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).



Wow - this is a perfect example of what is replete throughout the article. Oh, of course, _by definition_ small children can't sin - it's just so obvious by definition that we (Catholics) don't even have to give a defense for it, especially since we can just ignore Psalm 58:3. Furthermore, even when we _do_ attempt to offer a defense, it's a horribly mis-applied Scripture that exegetically has nothing to do with what we are trying to show about people not being sinful at birth, since there's that small factor with Jacob and Esau that the Scripture is talking about them when _they weren't born yet!_


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 2, 2005)

Woh! "new Eve"????? Where does the Bible speak of Mary in that way? And I don't know how they could somehow make that connection at all between Mary and her Son as the new Adam and Eve. Twisted if you ask me. Any explaination as to how that terminology came about? Fred???


----------



## turmeric (May 2, 2005)

If we're not sinful at birth why do we need a new Adam, or, to put it another way, can anyone say "Council of Orange'?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 2, 2005)

True. I don't think I've ever heard a Catholic refer to that Council. It would totally undo much of their thinking.


----------



## turmeric (May 2, 2005)

They've never reversed it.


----------



## DTK (May 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Woh! "new Eve"????? Where does the Bible speak of Mary in that way? And I don't know how they could somehow make that connection at all between Mary and her Son as the new Adam and Eve. Twisted if you ask me. Any explaination as to how that terminology came about? Fred???


Hi Patrick,

The Bible does not speak of Mary in that way, as you already know. The concept of Mary being the "new eve" (not the term itself) has its origin at least as early as *Irenaeus (AD 130-200)*, who in his work _Against Heresies_, 3.22.4, wrote: "And thus also it was that the knot of Eve´s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith." His point was to emphasize, of course, that she gave birth to Christ, the last Adam. He does the same thing in his work, _Proof of the Apostolic Preaching_, Chapter 33, where he wrote: "And just as it was through a virgin who disobeyed that man was stricken and fell and died, so too it was through the Virgin, who obeyed the word of God, that man resuscitated by life received life. For the Lord came to seek back the lost sheep, and it was man who was lost; and therefore He did not become some other formation, but He likewise, of her that was descended from Adam, preserved the likeness of formation; for Adam had necessarily to be restored in Christ, that mortality be asorbed in immortality, and Eve in Mary, that a virgin, become the advocate of a virgin, should undo and destroy virginal disobedience by virginal obedience."

*Tertullian (AD 160-220)* draws the same analogy as well in his work, _On the Flesh of Christ_, Chapter 17: "For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin´s soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced. But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil´s word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events conceived; for the devil´s word afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an outcast, and bring forth in sorrow. Indeed she gave birth to a fratricidal devil; whilst Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was one day to secure salvation to Israel, His own brother after the flesh, and the murderer of Himself. God therefore sent down into the virgin´s womb His Word, as the good Brother, who should blot out the memory of the evil brother. Hence it was necessary that Christ should come forth for the salvation of man, in that condition of flesh into which man had entered ever since his condemnation."

I suppose that the analogy can be deduced from Scripture, but without any Roman notions of the immaculate conception. The Roman doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary teaches that she was preserved from original sin. But that notion was surely unknown, and implicitly denied by the following church fathers....

*Ambrose (c. 339-97): No Conception is without iniquity, since there are no parents who have not fallen.* I. D. E. Thomas, _The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations_ (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1996), p. 258.
*Latin text:* Nec conceptus iniquitatis exsors est, quoniam et parentes non carent lapsu. _Prophetae David ad Theodosium Augustum_, Caput XI, PL 14:873.

*Ambrose (c. 339-97): So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God.* Also, no one forgives sins except God alone, for it is also written: "œWho can forgive sins but God alone?" And one cannot be the Creator of all except he be not a creature, and he who is not a creature is without doubt God; for it is written: "œThey worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, Who is God blessed for ever." God also does not worship, but is worshipped, for it is written: "œThou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve." _NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit_, Book III, Chapter 18, Â§133.

*Ambrose (c. 339-97):* Let us therefore consider whether the Holy Spirit have any of these marks which may bear witness to His Godhead. And first let us treat of the point that *none is without sin except God alone*, and demand that they prove that the Holy Spirit has sin. _NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit_, Book III, Chapter 18, Â§134.

*Augustine (354-430 AD):* Moreover, when expounding the Gospel according to Luke, he [i.e. Ambrose] says: "œIt was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin´s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. *For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth*; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty." _NPNF1: Vol. V, Augustin´s Anti-Pelagian Works, The Grace of Christ And on Original Sin_, Book II On Original Sin, Chapter 47-Sentences from Ambrose in favor of Original Sin.

*Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (c. 467-532):* For the flesh of Mary, which had been conceived in iniquities in the usual manner, *was the flesh of sin* which begot the Son of God in the likeness of the flesh of sin...For translation, see I. D. E. Thomas, _The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations_ (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1996), pp. 180-181. 
*Latin Text:* Caro quippe Mariae, quae in iniquitatibus humana fuerat solemnitate concepta, caro fuit utique peccati, quae Filium Dei genuit in similitudinem carnis peccati. _Epistola XVII_, Cap. VI, Â§13, PL 65:458. 

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## smallbeans (May 3, 2005)

A basic theological purpose of the doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception in RC theology, if I'm understanding its use correctly, is to provide an explanation for the sinlessness of Jesus' humanity. If he is born of Mary, she needs to be sinless in order that Jesus does not partake of this.

In Reformed doctrine, in seminary, we were taught to explain the sinlessness of Jesus' humanity by virtue of the Spirit's immediate work on Jesus' humanity, preserving it sinless - the Spirit "overshadowed her." This is more like the Augustinian version. The Reformed version seems like a neater solution to the issue, for me, but I think that Roman Catholics, in their piety, have the importance of Mary ingrained into them, and so a solution involving her is going to be more persuasive, especially since her "ever-virginity" was also part of the tradition for a long time and the weakness of the flesh is tightly linked with sexuality.

As for children, I always see in RC theology that children have original sin, but not actual sins. Usually this is due to the fact that sin is defined as involving a willingness to do wrong, and babies are not, it is alleged, capable of that kind of willing disobedience.

Pelikan has a book on the development of Marian doctrine and it has the full story on all this stuff. The Marian doctrines are one of the things that the Anglican opponents of the Tractarians pointed to in order to illustrate that doctrinal development can also go wrong when it exaggerates something true and then goes beyond the scriptures. Newman had several marks of a good development vs. an unwarranted one, and the argument was that Newman's marks neglected distortion through exaggeration. It is clear that Mary has a honored place in the scriptures, the argument goes, but it is exaggeration to then begin to attribute to her qualities she is not said to possess and roles she is not said to have. I read all about that stuff in Peter Toon's good little book on doctrinal development - you might like it.

I think it is important to show RC's that we understand the place that Mary has in their tradition and find a way to show how our disagreements with their Marian doctrines have more to do with our commitment to scripture than to any kind of devaluing of Mary as she is presented in the bible.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 3, 2005)

Thanks for the quotes David. I see two errors there from Ireneus and Tertullian. 
1) the Eve was a virgin when she sinned, which seems contrary to Gen. 2. 
2) That Christ was born sinless by virtue of Mary's obedience or merit in comparison to Eve's sin. 

I could see where the Catholics would take these errors and run with them. 

It also makes me wonder just how many early church father writings were conveniently "lost" over time because they didn't fit the pattern of the developing medieval Catholicism.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 3, 2005)

Read Mathison's book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura. It does a great job showing the doctrines Rome has added to the rule of faith.


----------



## Ravens (May 3, 2005)

Smallbeans,

I've often thought that Roman Catholics establish an absurdity when they hold to Mary's immaculate conception as a necessary safeguard of Christ's sinlessness. Even aside from Scripture (I'm sure we all agree their position is asinine), it seems to set up a regression back to Eve. I.e., if Christ was to be born sinless, then Mary had to be; and if Mary was to be born sinless, then her mother had to be; and her grandmother... etc., etc.

If there's going to be a decisive act in breaking the chain of sin, I would expect it to be found in Christ.


----------



## smallbeans (May 3, 2005)

Yes, that is an argument that's been used, but the RC response is simply - no, it just takes some intervention in the chain from Adam to break the hold of sin. I would not use that argument against RC's for that very reason, but would instead focus on other issues with them that lead to these odd Marian dogmas - things like the authority of scripture, etc. I think that a Roman Catholic has to know that high reverence for scripture that has always attended the church's theology and that it isn't just Protestants who look to the scriptures for a regulating effect on our doctrine. Say, "even if I grant you the idea of Catholic tradition, show me how on earth something like the immaculate conception (or even the bodily assumption of Mary) arose organically in the tradition. How is this a legitimate development?

Because, in the end, the doctrine's usefulness (in establishing a way for Jesus' humanity to be sinless) is not a proof of its truth, and they don't have to argue for the immaculate conception from its role in breaking the chain of original sin. They can simply say that it does and admit that it could have been done some other way.

I would stay away from Mary at first, though. Criticizing Marian doctrine is like beginning your dialogue with a Muslim by criticizing Mohammed. That will not get you very far.

My biggest problem with all these odd Marian doctrines is that they continue to develop and gain a hold over the imaginations of those who theologize in the catholic tradition, and certainly over lay piety. And so it makes ecumenicism very difficult - how can Christ's church ever be united again this side of the eschaton when Rome has adopted these positions that are so hard to reconcile with the scriptures? It looks like Rome is willing to talk about justification, and even other issues, but things like Marian dogma and the elevation of one Bishop as pope are hard nuts to crack. And really, Marian dogma and papal authority go together because the two most objectionable Marian doctrines were really cemented by ex cathedra Papal pronouncements - the only two such pronouncements establishing a dogma, if I'm not mistaken.


----------

