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

[matthew11v25]

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.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may 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. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored 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 that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel´s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, 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.


Fundamentalists´ Objections



Fundamentalists´ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary´s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let´s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. 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.

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. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ´s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in 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 Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

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).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So 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.

Paul´s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary"”but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX 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.

Actually, 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, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.

Mary´s Cooperation


Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God´s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory.

All Christians believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say "yes" to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.


The Bible Only?


Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.

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 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

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

 

[Me Died Blue]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[turmeric]

They've never reversed it.

 

[DTK]

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, §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, §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, §13, PL 65:458.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[smallbeans]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.