Was Mary sinless from conception?

[goldenchild]

And finally, you take Rom. 3:23 and say that all People have sinned. How can you say this? The verse certainly doesn't. It says that ALL have sinned. ALL what? All people, all religions, all the rich people? To really understand what verse 23 is saying you must read the whole passage in context and expecially verse 9, which say that all Jews and Greeks have sinned. It says nothing of individuals. The whole letter to the Romans is written by Paul as in terms of "all".

[Anthony Wales]

RE THE PURIFICATION OFFERING

The baptism of St John was a baptism of repentence for the remission of sins. Jesus was baptised by John, does this mean that he had to repent and needed remission of sins? Of course not, we interpret his baptism in accordance with the truth that he is God and without sin. We say he was baptised to fulfill all righteousness, sanctify the waters of baptism, and give us an example to follow.

In like manner, it is acceptable for Catholics to interpret the passages about Mary and the purification offering in accordance with another Christian truth (the immaculate conception). We can say that Mary followed the Law to fulfill all righteousness and to present Christ to God the Father.

Further, the text from Leviticus does not say whether the sin offering is for the women who has given birth or for the child born. Pregnancy and child-bearing are not sins, so this may indicate that the offering is not for the woman. On the other hand, we know that children are born with original sin, so the offering may have been for the child. But in the case of Christ it would obviously not be a sin offering but merely presenting him to the Lord.

God bless,
Anthony.

[Anthony Wales]

RE: CHURCH FATHERS ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION



The following passage from the Catholic Encyclopaedia article on the Immaculate Conception gives numerous statements by many church fathers supporting this doctrine. The statements may not use the exact words 'immaculate conception' but they strongly support the meaning of the doctrine. This shows that the doctrine has a solid foundation in the first several centuries of Christianity.



THE SECTION OF THE ARTICLE



This celebrated comparison between Eve, while yet immaculate and incorrupt -- that is to say, not subject to original sin -- and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:

• Justin (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100),
• Irenaeus (Contra Haereses, III, xxii, 4),
• Tertullian (De carne Christi, xvii),
• Julius Firm cus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
• Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses, xii, 29),
• Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
• Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
• Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).

The absolute purity of Mary

Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.

• The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
• Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
• Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
• Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
• Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
• In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).
• Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
• it is evident and notorious notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
• she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
• she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
• when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
• The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
• To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
• Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the "Revelations" of Catherine Emmerich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary. From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.

[Anthony Wales]

Jesus is God though. God can't sin. Mary was just human so how could she be an exception in the same way that Jesus is?

Mary was preserved from sin by the grace of God, as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says.

Surely the grace of God is great enough to preserve someone from sin from the first moment of their conception.

Adam and Eve were created without sin and they could have resisted temptation. So it possible for a human being to totally free from sin.

God bless,
Anthony.

[Anthony Wales]

RE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: "From the earliest documents onward, we repeatedly see Jesus Christ exempted by name. He's repeatedly referred to as sinless, even though His sinlessness is implied by His deity. In other words, even though the authors didn't need to say that Jesus was sinless, since His deity logically leads to the conclusion of sinlessness, they mention His sinlessness anyway, explicitly and repeatedly. Since Mary's alleged sinlessness isn't a logical necessity, we would expect her sinlessness to be mentioned. It never is in any of the earliest sources. If Mary was meant to be exempted from the sinfulness of mankind, we would expect that exemption to be mentioned, as it is with Jesus. But such an exemption is never mentioned for Mary."

I have posted part of an article from the Catholic Encyclopaedia that shows Church Fathers stating that Mary is free from sin. Scripture passages implying/supporting the Immaculate Conception are being posted by myself and others. So you have Biblical and early mention of Mary as being free from sin.

By the way, early is a relative term. In 15, 000 years time I am sure people will say Pius IX's dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception is very early mention of Mary's sinlessness.

Also, the notion of 'Scripture alone' was not taught or believed by any Christians until the Protestant reformation. So going by your insistence on the necessity of early mention of doctrines we must reject the idea of 'Scripture alone'.

God bless,
Anthony.

[goldenchild]

Mary was preserved from sin by the grace of God, as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says.

Surely the grace of God is great enough to preserve someone from sin from the first moment of their conception.

Adam and Eve were created without sin and they could have resisted temptation. So it possible for a human being to totally free from sin.

God bless,
Anthony.

Um... yeah! Also, God is outside of time and so he can apply his grace to anyone at any time. He chose to apply His grace from the Crucifixion at a time just as Mary was born. Why wouldn't He want to do that in order to have a perfect mother?! If you could choose a custom mom, so to speak, and "customize" her to have no sin, wouldn't you? I know I would.

[JasonTE]

Anthony Wales,

The Catholic Encyclopedia article is misleading. It quotes fathers referring to Mary as pure, sinless, etc. in one passage without quoting what they said about her being a sinner in other passages. I've already documented Ambrose and Augustine denying that Mary was immaculately conceived, yet the material you've cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia misleadingly presents both of those fathers as if they agreed with the doctrine. The same can be said of Justin Martyr, Ephraim, Cyril of Jerusalem, and other fathers cited in your post.

Your post wrongly associates the New Eve concept with Mary being sinless from conception. Some of the church fathers referred to Mary as a New Eve, but they didn't associate that concept with Mary being sinless from conception. The fact that modern Roman Catholics associate the two concepts doesn't prove that the church fathers did. We know that men like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and John Chrysostom referred to Mary as a New Eve and a sinner. For you, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and other Roman Catholic sources to cite the patristic use of the New Eve concept, as if it proves early belief in the Immaculate Conception doctrine or a seed form of it, is fallacious.

The fact is, nobody in the earliest centuries advocates the doctrine. And it was contradicted for hundreds of years by church fathers and Roman bishops. Quoting some church fathers referring to Mary being a pure virgin or having a post-conception sinlessness, or even an immaculate conception, doesn't prove the RCC's claim that the Immaculate Conception is a doctrine always held by the church. If a doctrine is absent and contradicted early on, then continues to be contradicted by many people while some begin advocating it, why would anybody conclude that it's a doctrine always held by the universal church? If the RCC's claims about this doctrine were correct, why would such influential men as Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent III be contradicting it more than a thousand years after the time of the apostles? You aren't even attempting to reconcile these facts with the claims of the RCC. Instead, you're repeating a series of false and misleading claims made by the Catholic Encyclopedia, and you're appealing to a process of doctrinal development that's more evasive than explanatory. Contradictions are not developments. When church fathers and Roman bishops for hundreds of years refer to Mary as a sinner, yet modern Roman Catholicism claims that Mary's sinlessness from conception is a Divinely revealed doctrine always held by the Christian church, that isn't a development akin to an acorn growing into an oak tree. Rather, it's a contradiction. It's like trying to derive an oak tree from an apple seed.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[Thew]

Golden Child,

You are on the verge of understanding something great, but some of your assertions, however, have you hanging by a very thin thread. Your observation that Mary is a bodily representation of the Ark of the Covenant is brilliant, i.e. scriptural.

However, what you're on the verge of realizing, but haven't yet, is that Mary is noneother than the representation of what ALL humans can become, if they receive Christ, the Hope of Glory, into their hearts.

We all can become bearers of the Covenant!
What is crucial for you to see, is that God wishes to dwell in all of us.
WE are the temple of the Holy Spirit, God no longer dwells in inanimate objects: Mary was to become a living metaphor of what God desired to do with all mankind. Ponder this before you reply. The tone of my post is not meant condescending, so if that's how it's coming across, I apologize. And don't simply believe what I'm saying, cross-check it with scripture, in connection with what you know about the CHARACTER and NATURE of God Himself, as a person.

Secondly, your interpretation of Paul's words to the Romans is contradictory to Christ's act on the cross. Your twist on it may be an interesting read, but it is not correct in the context of the entire Gospel.

Before making such assertions, you must first realize that God is a perfect person, with perfect truth in Him, perfect integrity, He is perfectly consistent. God will never fall prey to contradicting Himself, so if something we know of scripture does not jive with what we know about HIM as a PERSON (meaning His integrity, His perfection), then something is wrong with OUR thinking not HIS.

So that was the foreword. Now, as regards your assertion that Mary was sinless (which thus far has not been substantiated by scripture, I have seen only wild conjecture):

Here's more scriptural proof to contradict your claim: 1 John 1:8, "If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us".
If you take issue with the word "we" in this passage, then you are making the same scholarly error you have made with the passage from Romans 3:23. You are saying that we must consider the specific target group only. This is only partly true. We must not only concentrate, when studying the Word of God, on the immediate context, but on the Gospel message Paul wanted to get across to ALL human beings in general (Paul makes it very clear, for instance, to the Church at Corinth, what his overall purpose was: 1 Cor. 1:11-17 "[...] Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void.")

Beware, so that in your defense of Catholic doctrine you do not begin preaching a false gospel. The way one preaches false gospel, for instance, is by ignoring the actual, historical and spiritual work Christ did on Calvary, in order to merely defend a man-made religion.

You must keep in mind that God had to brutally kill His own son. Realize in meditating on this, that this is what God would have had to do to each and every one of us. This is how serious sin is. Sin must be punished. So much so punished, in fact, that God did not even spare His very own Son.

Now consider the following very carefully: if you assert that Mary was sinless, while ignoring the excellent scriptures in Luke that Ric posted above, you are inadvertently stating that Mary would also have been capable of dying for our sins in the same manner Jesus did, i.e. for the sins of all history.

If the scriptures that Ric quotes above, which actually give the most concise explanation of and background on Mary's human condition that you will find in scripture, do not suffice, then perhaps you are closing your eyes to the truth because of what the Catholic Church is teaching you.

This may be hard for you to accept, but you must admit, if you are to be trusted, that the Word of God must have the final say, and not the teaching of any earthly organization which presumes to have powers which extend BEYOND the Word of God.
Additionally, Besides Romans 3:27, we also read a VERY clear passage in Romans 3:10, which Paul is deliberately quoting from the OT, in order to show that the condition of ALL human beings (and this now means all of history) is the same as it was at the time of the OT, and would remain so in the future:

"as it is written [Paul quotes OT], 'THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;'"

You are right when you point out that Paul was attempting to straighten out the thinking of the Church in Rome regarding disputes among Jews and Greeks. But you make a very strange oversight:

1. Mary was a JEW!

2. Whatever applies to Greeks, applies to ALL gentiles!

If this crystal clear logic still doesn't convince you, then continue.
Confer: Psalm Ch. 14 (e.g. v. 3) or 53:2 (an identical repeat of Psalm 14), where David, the King of the lineage which would yield the Christ, explains the condition of ALL mankind, not just those under his rule!
Even the very words of Jesus Himself condemn all mankind in this regard:

John 8:7 "Let He who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone"... Why did Mary not come forth? Where was she? Would you dare suggest Jesus "forgot" about her when He made this suggestion? Or that He was only addressing the immediate, present crowd in saying "among you"? Or would you dare assert that only male Jews were allowed to participate in stonings? If so, you would be missing the point of the enitre Gospel, as it is uttered from the mouth of the only sinless person to walk this earth after the fall of Adam, Jesus, the Christ.

And what about John 1:29, 16:8? You know, the sin of the world?
Would you assert that Mary, although a Jew, was not of this world?
And what then will you do with Romans 5:12?
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all people, because all sinned - [...]"

The sin of the lineage of Adam was not imputed into the body of Jesus (the prophecy states that the Messiah would be born of "the seed of a woman"; Mary was a virgin, her temple had not been yielded to the seed of any man); meaning that He was therefore also physically not of the seed of Joseph. Who, however, were Mary's parents? How was she conceived? Where do you find information on this in the scripture?

Or, will you, in defense of the Church, reiterate the Catholic belief that Mary did not die? If so, where, again do you find this in the scripture? The myth that Mary also ascended into heaven is simply not scriptural. Mary eventually died (physically at least).

Goldenchild, you must see that she cannot continually be put by the Church on the same level with Christ.

Don't you see that by doing so, you are elevating her to the status of a God? Some Catholics even pray to her, believing that, like God, she hears prayers beyond the grave. But where is this in scripture?

By doing these things, one effectively worships Mary. Whereas God clearly stated "You shall have no other Gods before me". What do you do with this scripture? Cast it aside in favor of Church doctrine?

Another crucial thing you must understand, before you can even begin to analyze these scriptures, is the person of God Himself.
You must understand something very key about His nature.
You will not understand any of this business about the sin that Jesus was addressing, nor will you understand how it got into mankind (through one man sin entered into ALL mankind") and why we are "sinful" unless you understand that the very essence of God Himself is pure Holiness. The Bible teaches us that our God is a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24 quoted by the writer of Hebrews: cf. Heb. 12:29).

Nobody, without Christ, can stand before the Holiness of God, for it is fire to them.

Mary was not exempt from this. She also needed Christ as her mediator to take the punishment for her individual sin as well, in her place, so that she could then stand this Holy Fire of God. To them who have Christ, this Fire is glorious clothing, to those who are without Christ, it is consuming flame.
But we're actually getting ahead of ourselves. We should have first backtracked to your main premise before even looking at these scriptures.

The first thing you state is also based on misleading Church doctrine.

"First off, Mary is God's mother", you said.

This statement unwittingly implies that Mary herself is a deity, which, I'm sure you would agree, would be apostasy.

The Gospel of John Chapter 1 verses 1 thru 5:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being [i.e. God, the Word [Jesus], created all things]."

According to the scripture, Jesus was in eternity past. He was not created. Instead, it was He, who created all things.
Creating all things includes Him having created Mary.

For a God to be born into this world by a woman is much different language than stating that "God has a mother". You must differentiate your language, even if the Church does not, and understand that there is a crucial difference.
We are skating on thin ice, while ignoring all the "Warning! Thin ice!" signs of the Word by extrapolating things from the bible that simply are not there.

This happens when you lose sight of God's plan, system of Judgement and Justice, of how He actually uses His omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. He will not and does not use them arbitrarily.

Furthermore, this next statement has gone so far out of the framework of God's Word, in so many ways, that I hardly know where to begin in explaining to you what's wrong with the thinking behind it.

"God is outside of time and so he can apply his grace to anyone at any time. He chose to apply His grace from the Crucifixion at a time just as Mary was born.", you asserted here.

It suffices for me to first simply state that God's plan is not arbitrary ("I am the same yesterday, today and forever"), and it does not change.

Secondly, there are approximately 300 prophecies in the Old Testament with regard to the coming of the Messiah. Look at two facts (not speculation, but scriptural proof):

1. All of these prohecies were fulfilled in one person: Jesus Christ;

2. All of them were fulfilled within the framework of TIME (within the chronological history of the world), not by arbitrarily working "out of the box" on Jesus' behalf.

What I'm getting at is, by asserting that God worked something special for Mary (applied his grace outside of time), you are unwittingly stating that He would do something for her out of time, while requiring of His very own Son, to remain in time! This is so paradoxical to what we know about God's consistency, that it simply cannot even hold water philisophically. It's too full of holes. Like the plot of a poorly written time-travel, sci-fi movie. But more importantly, it's not in the bible anyway!
Third, God's Grace never was, nor will it ever be exercised or experienced disconnected from the act of the Cross, as it took place according to chronological earth time.

All of God's Grace is based on that one work of Justice (punishing sin), in time. In fact, it was not until AFTER this punishment took place, on earth, in earth time, that the veil in the Holy of Holies tore in half from top to bottom. And here, I'm speaking of an actual sequence of earth-time events.

It was also not until AFTER Jesus delivered His Spirit into the hands of the Father that He himself went to the place He spoke of (in Luke Chapter 16 beginning with verse 20 ending with verse 31) which Jesus calls the "Bosom of Abraham", where He then, after the work had been finished, according to earthly chronological time, could then take those souls with Him who were awaiting this very moment in time when their sins would be covered by the blood. This is scriptural, not conjecture.

Fourth, it was not until the end of His crucifixion that Christ uttered His last words: "It is finished". You must ask yourself: What? What did Christ have to finish? Does not a thing, in order to be finished, have to first be commenced? Do you hear the root of this word? It was a work that was performed for finite beings, within earth-time! Although it had eternal consequences, it had a documentable, chronological beginning and ending. Still with me here?

5th: While only choosing to view one aspect of God's constitution, you neglect to see all of Him. God is not only omnipotent, working only according to this single feature any way He chooses. He also has integrity within the community of the Trinity and holds to plans that He Himself sets in motion (e.g. Exodus Ch. 2:24: God holds to His Covenant). I.e., in consultation among the entire Godhead, God devised to create all things, including humans. He knew they would disobey (fall out of fellowship with Him and become spiritually dead) and so he conceived the plan of salvation. This all took place "before the foundation of the world", scripture tells us.
Then, after the plan was conceived, He made time, space, made the earth, made people.

And he has been working in unison with the laws which He Himself set in motion ever since. He will not and does not contradict a thing He Himself sets in motion. He will not ever do this. He worked according to the laws of physics and time to save mankind in Jesus on the cross, why would he break His own rules to make Mary sinless? What scripture would you quote to support such an outlandish claim?

Ponder this long and hard: God said in Genesis, when He created the Heavens and the Earth and rested on the seventh day: "It is Good."

Case in point: even the virgin birth itself is based on a biological possibility:

Although rare, there is a phenomenon in reproduction whereby the gamete (female's egg) will begin to divide and create a baby without having been fertilized by a sperm. In most cases, when this happens to a woman, the egg stops dividing and dies after approx. 14 days. This phenomenon is called Parthenogenesis (growth of an organism from an unfertilized gamete, or sex cell).
So, although your musing may be Amusing, it lacks basis in

1. Scripture;

2. Laws of physics;

3. Laws of biology;

4. Laws of time, and lacks basis in

What we know of God's

1. Integrity to His own system;

2. Chronological and historical plan of salvation for mankind, and His

3. Justice.

You must understand, in looking to be creative, that you may only do this within the framework of His Word, as well as His nature as a triune being which is in perfect harmony within itself and cannot contradict itself.

If you espouse a doctrine which violates either one of the two of these things at any given point, that doctrine falls apart, becomes apostate.

6th: A further point on Mary being Jesus' mother:

In the Gospel of Matthew 12:48 (cf. also Mark 3:33) we find an account given of Mary's very natural human nature. First of all, we read here, quite plainly, that she had other children. We know that Jesus had siblings, particularly because at least one is a major New Testament figure, who also believed in the Risen Christ and was saved.

But this account depicts something much more interesting. Mary, who you say is sinless, went with some of Jesus' siblings to get Him, while He was preaching and healing, because she and her sons thought Jesus had lost His mind. This is scriptural.

When the disciples told Jesus, God in the flesh, that His "mother and brothers" were outside, having come to fetch Him since He'd seemingly gone crazy, Jesus, God incarnate, responded: "Who is my mother?"

Which, plainly meant: the mere fact alone that she bore me physically does not make her MY mother. This was Jesus speaking as God, not man.

You must learn to differentiate, and to stay true to the integrity of the text your reading and the God you're serving. Your interpretations are extremely biased in favor of Mary being a Goddess. It appears as though you trust Catholic teaching more than the Word of God itself and the Person of Jesus Himself.

But you cannot surgically remove God from His context as an eternal being with a purpose, plan, integrity, truth, simply because you can't imagine that what the Church is teaching is wrong.

If we were allowed to do this, we may as well all write our own personal gospel, however we see fit.

But, unfortunately, things are not that way. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He does not waver. He does not shift. He does not contradict a thing He has set in motion.

Instead of attempting to squeeze God into the box of doctrine we espouse, we must think out of the box of our religions.

The Lord said: "My Word will never return to me void". Ponder this, and you may see what I've been going on about here.

One more thing: I'm not interested in being a party-pooper. The things you bring up ARE, in fact key to salvation, and are therefore dangerous talk. The jealous God we serve will have NO OTHER GOD's before Him. You cannot serve two masters. Either you choose the salvation which is offered to you through Christ, and Him alone, or you Choose to "mix and mingle" it with some very far-fetched Catholic doctrine. When you choose the latter, however, then, unfortunately Revelation 3:15 applies.

So in conclusion, yes, Mary was the initial and primary living metaphor for "Christ in us, the Hope of Glory" (cf. Colossians 1:27).

But, goldenchild, all there is to be gleaned from this is: so are you!

Eagerly looking forward to reading your reply,
Very sincerely,
Thew

[Mujibur]

Um... yeah! Also, God is outside of time and so he can apply his grace to anyone at any time. He chose to apply His grace from the Crucifixion at a time just as Mary was born. Why wouldn't He want to do that in order to have a perfect mother?! If you could choose a custom mom, so to speak, and "customize" her to have no sin, wouldn't you? I know I would.

Why would Jesus need a perfect mother? If Mary was an imperfect being, would she pass on that imperfection to Jesus in the womb? Because of his "fully God" nature, Jesus would be immune to the curse of original sin. Yes, Jesus definitely could have picked anybody He wanted to be His mother. He also could have picked where He would be born and the social class of family He would be born into. He chose to be born in a lowly manger, surrounded by barn animals, to a carpenter and his wife (not a King), and to spend His ministry associating with sinners and the lowlifes of the Jewish society (tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers). So why would He then need to have a "perfect" mother?

[Anthony Wales]

[QUOTE=Thew]Golden Child,

You are on the verge of understanding something great, but some of your assertions, however, have you hanging by a very thin thread. Your observation that Mary is a bodily representation of the Ark of the Covenant is brilliant, i.e. scriptural.

However, what you're on the verge of realizing, but haven't yet, is that Mary is noneother than the representation of what ALL humans can become, if they receive Christ, the Hope of Glory, into their hearts.

We all can become bearers of the Covenant!
What is crucial for you to see, is that God wishes to dwell in all of us.
WE are the temple of the Holy Spirit, God no longer dwells in inanimate objects: Mary was to become a living metaphor of what God desired to do with all mankind. Ponder this before you reply. The tone of my post is not meant condescending, so if that's how it's coming across, I apologize. And don't simply believe what I'm saying, cross-check it with scripture, in connection with what you know about the CHARACTER and NATURE of God Himself, as a person.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that God wants to live in us, and does live in us through faith and the sacraments. The Church teaches that in every Mass Jesus Christ comes to us in the Eucharist and therefore lives in us. Also, the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer says that Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit as his first gift to those who believe - hence the Church teaches that we are temples of the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is both a sign and reality of what God desires for all of us. She perfectly cooperated with Christ and she is already bodily in heaven. You say Mary was to become a living metaphor of what God desires for all of us. Does this mean she is already a living metaphor of the bodily resurrection?

Now consider the following very carefully: if you assert that Mary was sinless, while ignoring the excellent scriptures in Luke that Ric posted above, you are inadvertently stating that Mary would also have been capable of dying for our sins in the same manner Jesus did, i.e. for the sins of all history.

This is not true. It if the fact that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man that means he can die for the salvation of the world. Sinlessness alone would be enough. Hence you objection to Mary's sinlessness on the grounds that this means she could play the same role as Christ in salvation is wrong.

If the scriptures that Ric quotes above, which actually give the most concise explanation of and background on Mary's human condition that you will find in scripture, do not suffice, then perhaps you are closing your eyes to the truth because of what the Catholic Church is teaching you.

I responded to the Scripture passages mentioned by Ric (about the purification), and no reply has been posted. Perhaps you are closing your eyes to the truth because of what Protestant Churches are teaching you.

This may be hard for you to accept, but you must admit, if you are to be trusted, that the Word of God must have the final say, and not the teaching of any earthly organization which presumes to have powers which extend BEYOND the Word of God.

The Word of God has the final say. Jesus Christ is the Word of God (see John 1). This Word comes down to us in both the Bible and Tradition, and is authentically interpreted by the Catholic Magisterium. To ignore Tradition and the magisterium and only go by the Bible is to neglect part of the word of God and follow the man-made tradition of 'Scripture alone'. So Catholics are doing what the ought to do when they follow the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium.

Even the very words of Jesus Himself condemn all mankind in this regard:

John 8:7 "Let He who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone"... Why did Mary not come forth? Where was she? Would you dare suggest Jesus "forgot" about her when He made this suggestion? Or that He was only addressing the immediate, present crowd in saying "among you"? Or would you dare assert that only male Jews were allowed to participate in stonings? If so, you would be missing the point of the enitre Gospel, as it is uttered from the mouth of the only sinless person to walk this earth after the fall of Adam, Jesus, the Christ.

In the words you quote Jesus is not saying that all human beings are sinners. He may say this elsewhere, but not on this occasion. He is challenging the double standards of the woman's accusers and saying that only sinless people may execute judgement. You are reading your own ideas into the text when you say that Jesus is labelling all people as sinners.

I am fairly sure that Mary was not present at this incident. I understand that this occurred in Jerusalem not in Jesus' home town and we also know that Mary did not accompany Jesus on all his preaching mission. So these are two reasons why Mary may not have been at this incident. It is surely clear that Jesus' challenge ('who he is without sin...') is directed towards those present at the time (particularly the woman's accusers). Since it was likely that Mary was not there, this means that Jesus is not accusing her of being a sinner. Jesus' words also give us something to think about, but strictly speaking they are not saying everyone is a sinner.

Even if Mary was present this does not mean she was a sinner. Jesus says if you are going to condemn her it should be the person without sin who throws the first stone. He does not say she must be condemned and therefore the person who is sinless must cast a stone. Hence Mary could have been sinless and present and chosen not to throw a stone. Also, since Mary perfectly followed Jesus it is fitting that she would not have condemned the woman. Jesus emphasised the importance of mercy and Mary would therefore have shown mercy to people.

And what about John 1:29, 16:8? You know, the sin of the world?
Would you assert that Mary, although a Jew, was not of this world?

It is perfectly Scriptural to assert that Mary was not of this world because in John's Gospel Jesus is recorded as saying that his disciples do not belong to the world (17:16).

Or, will you, in defense of the Church, reiterate the Catholic belief that Mary did not die? If so, where, again do you find this in the scripture? The myth that Mary also ascended into heaven is simply not scriptural. Mary eventually died (physically at least).

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary ascended into heaven, but that she was assumed into heaven. There is a big difference: Jesus ascended because he took himself to heaven, Mary is assumed because God took her to heaven. The Catholic Church does not say that Mary did not die, but that she taken body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life.

Please show me where Scripture says Mary was not assumed into heaven. The Assumption of Mary is found in Tradition which has as much authority as Scripture and it is dogmatically taught by the Magisterium - this means that it is part of Divine revelation.

It is also implied in the Bible. Someone else posted a good response showing that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant, and you accepted this. Psalm 132:8 says "Rise up, O Lord, and go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might" (NRSV). This verse is clearly talking about the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ - this is clear by the words "rise up, O Lord, and go to your resting place", and the words "your might" because the work of Christ is the Lord's mightiest work. Since Mary has been shown to be the Ark and this verse connects the Ark with Jesus, it is clear that she is being referred to in this verse. The Psalm says that the Ark will also rise and go to the resting place - that is, Mary will be assumed body and soul (rise) into heaven (the resting place). The fact that the Psalm is talking about Christ's physical resurrection and ascenion confirms that the Ark will also go up physically.

Goldenchild, you must see that she cannot continually be put by the Church on the same level with Christ.

Don't you see that by doing so, you are elevating her to the status of a God? Some Catholics even pray to her, believing that, like God, she hears prayers beyond the grave. But where is this in scripture?

The Church does not put Mary on the same level as Christ. Jesus Christ is God, whereas Mary is merely a creature who has been given great favours by God and because of Christ. This is the teaching of the Church.

Please explain how Mary being sinless and assumed into heaven, makes her equal to God. Adam and Eve were originally free from sin and could have been free from sin forever, does this mean they are equal to God? All of us (if we get to heaven) will be free from sin for eternal life, does this make us equal to God? Of course not, so how does Mary being sinless make her equal to God? Particularly, when the Catholic Church says she is free from sin by the grace of God.

Everyone who attains to the resurrection of the righteous will be in heaven body and soul forever. Does this mean that we are equal to God? Of course not, so how does Mary being body and soul in heaven a little earlier make her equal to God? Particularly, when the Church says this is a work of God.

By doing these things, one effectively worships Mary. Whereas God clearly stated "You shall have no other Gods before me". What do you do with this scripture? Cast it aside in favor of Church doctrine?

Please explain how saying Mary was a sinless human being, was assumed into heaven, and that we can ask her to pray for us, is worshipping Mary? There is only one God and Catholics worship him only - we do not call Mary 'God', the Mass is not addressed to God not Mary, and we live for God not Mary.

Catholics have no problem with that or any passages of Scripture. We accept both the Bible and the teachings of the Church. You have created a straw-men version of Catholicism and pitted it against the Bible. We don't have any difficulties or have to choose between the Bible and the Church, because we accept the actual teachings of Catholicism and not your invented version of it.

The first thing you state is also based on misleading Church doctrine.

"First off, Mary is God's mother", you said.

This statement unwittingly implies that Mary herself is a deity, which, I'm sure you would agree, would be apostasy.

This doctrine does not imply that Mary is a deity. It is defending the truth that God truly became Incarnate in her womb and was born of her. It does not say she generated the Divinity of Christ, but that the Divinity was truly united with humanity in her womb and born of her. Scripture and Protestants call Mary 'the mother of Jesus', and both Scripture and Protestants call Jesus 'God', therefore it logically follows that Mary is the 'mother of God'.

The Gospel of John Chapter 1 verses 1 thru 5:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being [i.e. God, the Word [Jesus], created all things]."

According to the scripture, Jesus was in eternity past. He was not created. Instead, it was He, who created all things.
Creating all things includes Him having created Mary.

The Catholic Church teaches these things. In fact, it declared John's Gospel to be inspired Scripture.

For a God to be born into this world by a woman is much different language than stating that "God has a mother". You must differentiate your language, even if the Church does not, and understand that there is a crucial difference.

You have misunderstood, in my opinion. God became Man and became like us in all things but sin. In Jesus, God shares in everything we have (except sin) and since we have mothers, he therefore has a mother as well. The phrase 'mother of God' affirms the fact that God truly became Man and accepted every aspect of humanity (except sin), against the idea that the Divinity merely hung around the humanity of Jesus.

In the Gospel of Matthew 12:48 (cf. also Mark 3:33) we find an account given of Mary's very natural human nature. First of all, we read here, quite plainly, that she had other children. We know that Jesus had siblings, particularly because at least one is a major New Testament figure, who also believed in the Risen Christ and was saved.

Please show me a single verse where it says 'the children of Mary,' or refers to someone apart from Jesus as 'the son of Mary' or 'the daughter of Mary.' The only person ever referred to as a child of Mary is Jesus Christ. Here is a good response to your claim by Dave Armstrong, taken from his site, 'Biblical Evidence for Catholicism.'

MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

1. Many Protestants assume that whenever they read of Jesus' "brothers," this is referring to His siblings, other sons and daughters of Mary. But it is not that simple. "Adelphos," the Gk. word for "brother" in the NT, has multiple meanings (like the English word), and they all appear frequently in Scripture. In addition to sibling, it can also denote (1) those of the same nationality (Acts 3:17; Rom 9:3); (2) any man, or neighbor (Mt 5:22; Lk 10:29); (3) persons with like interests (Mt 5:47); (4) distant descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5); (5) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (6) mankind (Mt 25:40; Heb 2:17); (7) the disciples (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:17); (8) all believers (Mt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10). Clearly, then, this issue is not at all settled by the mere word "brother"/"adelphos" in the Bible, and a more in-depth examination of the biblical data will be necessary.
2. "Brethren" - Biblical Exegesis

A. By comparing Gen 14:14 with 11:26-7, we find that Lot, called Abraham's "brother", is actually his nephew.

B. Jacob is called the "brother" of his Uncle Laban (Gen 29:10,15).

C. Cis and Eleazar are described as "brethren", whereas they are literally cousins (1 Chron 23:21-2).

D. "Brethren" as mere kinsmen: Deut 23:7; 2 Sam 1:26; 1 Ki 9:13; 2:32; 2 Ki 10:13-14; Jer 34:9; Amos 1:9.

E. Neither Hebrew or Aramaic has a word for "cousin." The NT retains this Hebrew usage by using "adelphos," even when non-siblings are being referred to.

F. In Lk 2:41-51, Joseph and Mary take Jesus to the Temple at the age of twelve, with no sign of any other siblings.

G. Jesus Himself uses "brethren" in the larger sense (Mt 23:1,8; 12:49).

H. By comparing Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40; and Jn 19:25, we find that James and Joseph - mentioned in Mt 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' "brethren" - are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Mary's "adelphe" in Jn 19:25 (two Marys in one family?! - thus even this usage apparently means "cousins" or more distant relative). Mt 13:55 and Mk 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all "adelphoi". Since we know that James and Joseph are not Jesus' blood brothers, it is likely that all these other "brethren" are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above.

I. Even standard evangelical Protestant commentaries such as Jamieson, Fausset & Brown admit that the question is not a simple one: "an exceedingly difficult question . . . nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . vexed question, encompassed with difficulties." {commentary for Mt 13:55}

J. Some Protestant commentators maintain that Mt 1:24-5 ("Joseph knew her not till . . .") implies that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Jesus. This does not follow, since "till" does not necessarily imply a change of behavior after the time to which it refers (cf. similar instances in 1 Sam 15:35; 2 Sam 6:23; Mt 12:20; Rom 8:22; 1 Tim 4:13; 6:14; Rev 2:25).

K. Likewise, "firstborn" (Mt 1:25) need not imply later children. A mother's first child is her "firstborn" regardless if any follow or not (Ex 13:2). Also, in the Bible, "firstborn" often means "preeminent," and even applies to those who are not literally the first child (Jer 31:9), or, metaphorically, to groups (Ex 4:22; Heb 12:23). Thus, "firstborn" in Mt 1:25 actually is more of an indication that Jesus is Mary's only child, than that there were others. This position is held by many evangelical Protestant scholars on these criteria, rather than Catholic dogmatic grounds.

L. Jesus committed his Mother to the care of John from the Cross (Jn 19:26-7). This is improbable if He had full brothers of His own then alive. Again, many Protestant interpreters agree.

M. Who would want to have God for a brother anyway?! Talk about sibling rivalry and an inferiority complex! The whole notion, if pondered, seems more and more improper and unbecoming - out and out implausible, even apart from the biblical data.

3. Early Christian Tradition was unanimous in holding to Mary's Perpetual Virginity. It was first doubted, as far as we know, by one Helvidius, who tangled with St. Jerome in 380, but by few others until recent times. All the Protestant Founders firmly held the belief, as did later notable Protestants such as John Wesley, and many more to this day, on biblical grounds alone.

But this account depicts something much more interesting. Mary, who you say is sinless, went with some of Jesus' siblings to get Him, while He was preaching and healing, because she and her sons thought Jesus had lost His mind. This is scriptural.

You have misread the text. The account in Mark (chapter 3) says that people were saying Jesus was out of his mind (verse 21), and that this led his family (Mother and cousins) to get him. It does not say that his family believed he was out of his mind, but that they came to get him because people were saying that he was. They may have wanted to find out what was going on and/or been concerned that people would harm him.

When the disciples told Jesus, God in the flesh, that His "mother and brothers" were outside, having come to fetch Him since He'd seemingly gone crazy, Jesus, God incarnate, responded: "Who is my mother?"

Which, plainly meant: the mere fact alone that she bore me physically does not make her MY mother. This was Jesus speaking as God, not man.

The fact that Mary bore Jesus physically does make her his mother. Both Judaism and Christianity say that children must honour their parents, and Jesus would have always honoured Mary as his mother. His point in this incident is that while physical motherhood is important, it is more important for people to do the will of God, than be physically related to him. But notice that it is Mary who accepts the word of God, ponders it and puts it into practice (Luke 1:38; 2:19, 51). Hence Mary is Jesus' physical mother, but is also the one who is specially honoured as most spiritually related to Jesus.

You must learn to differentiate, and to stay true to the integrity of the text your reading and the God you're serving. Your interpretations are extremely biased in favor of Mary being a Goddess. It appears as though you trust Catholic teaching more than the Word of God itself and the Person of Jesus Himself.

You must also interpret texts correctly and not blatantly misrepresent Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church does not say that Mary is a goddess. Catholic teaching is the word of God, and we believe it because it is Jesus Christ speaking to us and we trust him.

I may respond to the rest of the post later.

God bless,
Anthony.

[Anthony Wales]

The Catholic Encyclopedia article is misleading. It quotes fathers referring to Mary as pure, sinless, etc. in one passage without quoting what they said about her being a sinner in other passages. I've already documented Ambrose and Augustine denying that Mary was immaculately conceived, yet the material you've cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia misleadingly presents both of those fathers as if they agreed with the doctrine. The same can be said of Justin Martyr, Ephraim, Cyril of Jerusalem, and other fathers cited in your post.

The quote you mentioned from Sts Ambrose and Augustine says nothing for or against the notion that Mary is free from sin. Yet in other writings they explicitly say things about Mary that are in perfect harmony with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii).
Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).

I would like to see statements by Justin Martyr, Ephraim, and Cyril of Jerusalem that explicitly state that Mary was conceived with sin and committed actual sin. Justin Martyr and Cyril of Jerusalem both compare Mary with Eve before she sinned, thereby implying that Mary is without sin (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100) (Catecheses, xii, 29). Ephraim makes the following statement about Mary, which may not used the phrase 'immaculate conception' but carry the essential meaning of the doctrine:

"Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).

Your post wrongly associates the New Eve concept with Mary being sinless from conception. Some of the church fathers referred to Mary as a New Eve, but they didn't associate that concept with Mary being sinless from conception. The fact that modern Roman Catholics associate the two concepts doesn't prove that the church fathers did. We know that men like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and John Chrysostom referred to Mary as a New Eve and a sinner. For you, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and other Roman Catholic sources to cite the patristic use of the New Eve concept, as if it proves early belief in the Immaculate Conception doctrine or a seed form of it, is fallacious.

Please provide evidence to support your claims that Justin Martyr, Tertullian and John Chrysostom referred to Mary as both the new Eve and a sinner. Justin Martyr and Tertullian compared Eve while she was innocent with Mary (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100) (De carne Christi, xvii), this atleast implies that he believed Mary to be innocent. You may have support in John Chrysostom because he may have seen some of Mary's actions as sinful (Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. iv).

The comparison between Eve and Mary in the Church Fathers supports the claim that they saw Mary as free from all sin. They compare Mary with Eve before she sinned, thereby implying that was without sin. For example:
Justin (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100),
Irenaeus (Contra Haereses, III, xxii, 4),
Tertullian (De carne Christi, xvii),
Julius Firm cus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses, xii, 29),
Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).

The fact is, nobody in the earliest centuries advocates the doctrine. And it was contradicted for hundreds of years by church fathers and Roman bishops.

The doctrine may not be advocated under the exact title of 'Immaculate Conception' but the essence is there in many statements by early Christians. The meaning of the doctrine is that Mary was preserved from all stain of sin from the first moment of her conception and was sinless throughout her life. These ideas can be clearly found in the following statements by and references to the Church Fathers, thus providing a solid foundation for the eventual dogmatic definition.

The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");

Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);

Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");

Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").

In refuting Pelagius St Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).

It is evident and notorious notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);

She was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);

St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).

To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").

Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the "Revelations" of Catherine Emmerich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary.

Quoting some church fathers referring to Mary being a pure virgin or having a post-conception sinlessness, or even an immaculate conception, doesn't prove the RCC's claim that the Immaculate Conception is a doctrine always held by the church.

If a doctrine is absent and contradicted early on, then continues to be contradicted by many people while some begin advocating it, why would anybody conclude that it's a doctrine always held by the universal church?
If the RCC's claims about this doctrine were correct, why would such influential men as Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent III be contradicting it more than a thousand years after the time of the apostles?

You aren't even attempting to reconcile these facts with the claims of the RCC. Instead, you're repeating a series of false and misleading claims made by the Catholic Encyclopedia, and you're appealing to a process of doctrinal development that's more evasive than explanatory. Contradictions are not developments. When church fathers and Roman bishops for hundreds of years refer to Mary as a sinner, yet modern Roman Catholicism claims that Mary's sinlessness from conception is a Divinely revealed doctrine always held by the Christian church, that isn't a development akin to an acorn growing into an oak tree. Rather, it's a contradiction. It's like trying to derive an oak tree from an apple seed.

The Bible does not use the word 'Trinity' and it does not contain the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds. It is a few centuries before these Creeds, and about 1000 years before the truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is included in the Nicene Creed. Yet Protestants and Catholics both state that thesse things were always believed by the Church and taught in the Bible. Hence it is possible that the Immaculate Conception was always held by the Church even though it is expressed using that term, particularly when the meaning of the doctrine is implied in the Bible and implied or expressly stated by many people in every age of the Church.

Also, we must understand what Pius IX meant when he said that the immaculate conception is a doctrine always held by the Church. Did he mean that every single Catholic since the Apostles has believed in the doctrine using the exact wording he used in 1854? Did he mean that every time the doctrine has been mentioned or indirectly referred to by Church councils and official Church documents that it has been affirmed or at least not contradicted? Did he mean that the doctrine is implicitly taught in Scripture and since the Bible is always part of the Church teaching that the Church must have always held the Immaculate Conception? Did he mean that in every age the doctrine has been implicitly or expressly held by an overall consesus of Catholics?

Please show me where Pope Innocent III speaks against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?

I will attempt to explain the statement by Pius IX, give an explanation of doctrinal development, etc that settles this issue (atleast for me) in the near future.

God bless,
Anthony.

[JasonTE]

Anthony Wales,

My first post in this thread cites both Ambrose and Augustine denying that anybody other than Jesus was conceived without sin. I also quoted two historians agreeing with what I said about those church fathers, and one of those historians cites another passage in which Augustine denies that Mary was immaculately conceived. I'm not going to repeat what I documented in my first post. If you still don't understand it, then you should reread what I wrote.

I can give many other examples of the church fathers denying the Roman Catholic claim that Mary was sinless from conception. I'm not going to take the space here to list all of them. You can find a lot of examples I've documented at:

http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_n...olic_index.htm

I'll give several examples in this post, but more can be found at the web site linked above. Since we're discussing church fathers, and the RCC claims that the Immaculate Conception doctrine was always held and taught by the church, we wouldn't expect any of the alleged fathers of Roman Catholicism to deny the doctrine. If you want to argue that widespread rejection of the doctrine is consistent with Roman Catholic claims about church history, then you need to explain why alleged fathers of your denomination would not only reject, but also publicly write against doctrines that supposedly have always been held and taught by the church.

Clement of Alexandria refers to Christ as the only sinless person:

"Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father's will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand, and with the form of God is God. He is to us a spotless image; to Him we are to try with all our might to assimilate our souls. He is wholly free from human passions; wherefore also He alone is judge, because He alone is sinless. As far, however, as we can, let us try to sin as little as possible. For nothing is so urgent in the first place as deliverance from passions and disorders, and then the checking of our liability to fall into sins that have become habitual. It is best, therefore, not to sin at all in any way, which we assert to be the prerogative of God alone...But He welcomes the repentance of the sinner-loving repentance-which follows sins. For this Word of whom we speak alone is sinless. For to sin is natural and common to all." (The Instructor, 1:2, 3:12)

Tertullian refers to Mary as a sinner and a New Eve in the same document. He writes the following in response to people who deny that Jesus had an earthly family, then he comments on Mary being a second Eve:

"First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside [Matthew 12:46-50], if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and that they were the very persons whom he was then announcing,--who had either been known to him before, or were then and there discovered by him; although heretics have removed this passage from the gospel, because those who were admiring His doctrine said that His supposed father, Joseph the carpenter, and His mother Mary, and His brethren, and His sisters, were very well known to them....But there is some ground for thinking that Christ's answer denies His mother and brethren for the present, as even Apelles might learn. 'The Lord's brethren had not yet believed in Him.' So is it contained in the Gospel which was published before Marcion's time; whilst there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother's adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; but they do not go in, because, forsooth, they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something which they could contribute more necessary than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work. Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, or had laid a wager on a foot race or a chariot race, and were called away by such a message, would you not have exclaimed, 'What are mother and brothers to me?' And did not Christ, whilst preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity, He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently, and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers. When denying one's parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave Others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favour--even because they listened to the word (of God)--He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him. Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins on others. How strange, then, would it certainly have been, if, while he was teaching others not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the word of God, He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and brethren were announced to Him! He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours--for God's work. But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship. It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother's 'womb and paps,' but designating those as more 'blessed who hear the word of God.'...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." (On the Flesh of Christ, 7, 17)

Origen wrote:

"While if by those 'who were without sin' he means such as have never at any time sinned,-for he made no distinction in his statement,-we reply that it is impossible for a man thus to be without sin. And this we say, excepting, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus, who 'did no sin.'...God has not been able to prevent even in the case of a single individual, so that one man might be found from the very beginning of things who was born into the world untainted by sin...For in the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as common to all (the members of the race), and what was spoken with reference to the woman is spoken of every woman without exception." (Against Celsus, 3:62, 4:40)

The Anglican historian J.N.D. Kelly comments:

"Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon's prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified." (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)

The Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll writes the following about Cyril of Alexandria:

"In this commentary, C. [Cyril of Alexandria] uses phrases about Mary which seem to continue the opinions of Origen (qv) and St. Basil (qv) on imperfection in her faith: 'In all likelihood, even the Lord's Mother was scandalised by the unexpected passion, and the intensely bitter death on the Cross...all but deprived her of right reason.' He tries to imagine the thoughts that passed through Mary's mind. Had Jesus been mistaken when he said he was the Son of Almighty God? Why was he crucified who said he was the life? Why did he who had brought Lazarus back to life not come down from the Cross? Then he recalls what had been written of the Lord's Mother: Simeon's sword, 'the sharp force of the Passion which could turn a woman's mind to strange thoughts.' The word woman is significant, for C. thought that the frailty of the female sex was a factor in what he then thought was collapse." (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 113)

John Chrysostom repeatedly refers to Mary sinning in his commentaries on the gospels:

"even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if there be not virtue. And this is hence especially manifest. 'For while He yet talked to the people,' it is said, 'one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. Butt He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?' [Matthew 12:46-48] And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, 'While He yet talked to the people;' as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?" (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44)

"For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, 'Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?' (Matt. xii. 48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occassion....And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' [John 2:4] instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much for the salvation of her soul" (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)

Much more could be cited, but let me now move on to the bishops of Rome. The Protestant historian Philip Schaff counted seven different Roman bishops who denied the sinlessness of Mary (The Creeds of Christendom [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], Vol. I, p. 123). Keep in mind that counting seven Roman bishops who denied the doctrine isn't equivalent to saying that the rest believed in it. There are many Roman bishops in the early centuries whose writings aren't extant or who didn't comment on Mary's status as a sinner in any of their documents that are extant. We have record of several different Roman bishops denying the sinlessness of Mary, but it's likely that an even larger number rejected her sinlessness.

The Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll, in his book that I cited earlier in this post, cites Pope Innocent III saying that Mary was "begotten in guilt", that she needed "cleansing of the flesh from the root of sin" (p. 185). Since Innocent III lived in the second millennium of church history, I would ask, again, how it can be that such influential figures as Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent III rejected the Immaculate Conception if the doctrine was always taught by the church, as Pope Pius IX claimed.

You can't claim that only a small number of people opposed the sinlessness of Mary. J.N.D. Kelly comments that almost all Eastern theologians agreed with Origen's view that Mary was a sinner. And I've cited Augustine saying that the view that Jesus was the only immaculately conceived human was consistent with the faith of the universal church. The evidence suggests that Mary's sinlessness from conception was absent and contradicted for hundreds of years, then became a minority view while still being widely rejected.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte

[goldenchild]

I guess I'm gonna have to fall out of this discussion, at least for now. I simply don't have the time to weed through all of this insanity. I'm sorry. I presented the biblical view and there really is no way around it. I would be glad to show you where you are not making sense, but for the time being I just don't physically have the time. I'm sorry. For those of you say that the Church fathers didn't believe she is sinless, then I need specific quotes. Second, it really doesn't matter what SOME of these fathers said. Only the infallible teaching of the Church really matters, as a result of the teaching being completely biblical. Romans refers to groups of people in general. It is not saying that ALL individuals have sinned, and it's not saying that ALL individuals in a specific GROUP have sinned. It is saying that there are sinners in all groups, and from all walks of life, not that all of a certain group have sinned. "There are no exceptions."
And yeah, we can be an ark of the covenant in a sense. But we will never, ever be the ark of the real flesh and blood of Jesus. This is what puts Mary heads and tails above all other human beings, besides Jesus himself. I don't have the time, to address each and every single one of the obscure quotes you guys gave me, so even though it seems that I don't know what I'm talking about, I won't be able to follow this discussion. There was just way to many posts directed straight at me. If there is any possible way that a one-on-one debate can be set up between me and one other person on this subject I would be more than glad to participate. But there is just too much to weed through in this thread. If anyone wants a one-on-one debate, just set it up and direct me to it.

[JasonTE]

goldenchild,

You gave us no Biblical reason to believe in the sinlessness of Mary. If we're to parallel Mary with the ark of the covenant because Mary carried Jesus in her womb, then what about other objects that carried Jesus in some sense (His house, the cross, the people who carried Him from the cross, His tomb, etc.)? Why would Mary be the only candidate for a parallel with the ark? Why would there have to be a parallel? You try to parallel 2 Samuel and Luke, but you ignore many differences between the passages and you make the similarities out to be more significant than they actually are. You parallel 2 Samuel 6:9 and Luke 1:43, yet 2 Samuel 6:9 is spoken in the sense of fear, whereas Luke 1:43 is spoken in the sense of joy. The words are similar, but the meaning isn't. Your parallel between 2 Samuel 6:16 and Luke 1:44 is too vague to be of much significance.

Even if we accept the ark/Mary parallel, why would it require that Mary be sinless throughout her life? Why couldn't she be sinless only when carrying Jesus? And if she had to be sinless in order to carry Jesus, did Mary's mother have to be sinless in order to carry her?

Even Roman Catholic scholars reject the ark/Mary parallel. Some of the foremost Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars in the world concluded:

"However, in our judgment there is no convincing evidence that Luke specifically identified Mary with the symbolism of the Daughter of Zion or the Ark of the Covenant." (Mary in the New Testament, Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John Reumann, editors [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978] p. 134)

The earliest ark parallels among the church fathers identify Jesus, not Mary, as the parallel to the ark. Irenaeus writes:

"so is that ark declared a type of the body of Christ, which is both pure and immaculate. For as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both materials the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together." (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 48)

Hippolytus also saw Jesus rather than Mary in the ark. He mentions Mary as he's describing Jesus as the ark, so it can't be argued that he wasn't thinking of Mary at the time:

"At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, born of the Virgin, who was the 'ark overlaid with pure gold,' with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the 'ark' made manifest....the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body" (On Daniel, 2:6)

Victorinus sees the ark of Revelation 11:19 as representing the blessings Jesus brought to mankind. He tells us that the temple is Jesus, meaning that the ark is within Jesus. Roman Catholics make the opposite argument, claiming that the ark, as Mary, carries Jesus. Victorinus writes:

"'And the temple of God was opened which is in heaven.' The temple opened is a manifestation of our Lord. For the temple of God is the Son, as He Himself says: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' And when the Jews said, 'Forty and six years was this temple in building,' the evangelist says, 'He spake of the temple of His body.' 'And there was seen in His temple the ark of the Lord's testament.' The preaching of the Gospel and the forgiveness of sins, and all the gifts whatever that came with Him, he says, appeared therein." (Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, 11:19)

There is no Biblical evidence for the sinlessness of Mary. And the most natural reading of passages like Luke 1:47 and 2:48-50 is that Mary was a sinner. Nobody in the earliest generations of Christianity refers to Mary as sinless from conception, but many church fathers, from the second century onward, refer to her as a sinner. Even some Roman bishops denied that she was sinless. The concept that Mary was sinless from conception was absent and contradicted for hundreds of years, then became a minority view while still being widely rejected. These facts of history contradict the RCC's false claim that Mary's sinlessness is an apostolic tradition always understood and taught by the church.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

[Anthony Wales]

Jason,

The way you have treated this topic is not accurate or fair. On the one hand, you interpret Pius IX's words to mean that every Catholic (from the Apostles to the present) explicitly believed and taught the Immaculate Conception. On the other hand, you mispresent the beliefs and teachings of Christians throughout history (part. the Church fathers) to make it appear that no one believed or taught anything like the Immaculate Conception for a long time. Hence you create a contradiction between the words of Pius IX and Church history.

In reality there is no such contradiction. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is held implicitly in Scripture and the overall consensus of the Church Fathers. Over time it came to be explicitly held by the Church and eventually defined by Pius IX. Hence it is true to say that the doctrine has always been held, when this phrase of Pius IX is understood correctly.

It is enough to show that the doctrine is implicitly taught by the overall consensus of the Fathers to show that it was held in early times. Hence there is no problem with a minority of statements being found in the early Christian writings that contradict the doctrine.

Also, the process from implicit belief to explicit belief included Catholics discussing how and in what way Mary is free from sin. Given that discussion and study played a role in the development of this doctrine, it is not suprising that some Catholics (not the Church) disagreed with it. The fact that the discussions and study eventually resolved the difficulties and resulted in the triumph of the doctrine demonstrates that it is from God.

For those interested, further information on the Immaculate Conception, and the related topics of doctrinal development, tradition, etc may be found at Biblical Evidence For Catholicism at:http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM

God bless,
Anthony.