Immaculate Conception

[Apotheoun]

We receive a 'liberative' redemption, in other words, Christ the Lord liberates us from a condition of slavery to sin; while Mary receives a 'preservative' redemption, in that, by a prevenient grace of Almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ preserves Mary free from all stain of sin. In either case Christ is the sole cause of the grace given and the redemption received, only the manner of reception differs.

[phatcatholic]

shew! this doctrine is definitely fresh in my mind, considering i've spent the last 2 months defending it in a rather hostile environment. i will first propose why this doctrine is "needed" and in another post address the biblical defense.

of foremost and fundamental importance is the fact that ALL marian doctrines are "Christo-centric." this means that, though they are about mary, they are centered on Christ, and any honor we give Mary is only b/c of the power and glory of Jesus Christ in her life and this honor always ultimately goes to Him.

and so it is w/ the immaculate conception. in this case, stating that mary was born w/o sin defends the righteousness of Jesus Christ. the Son of God deserves only the greatest dwelling place. in the OT, the "Word of God" as it was manifested in the ten commandments was placed in an ark overladen w/ pure gold and jewels--as God Himself commanded. it was the pride and glory of all who possessed it--and death upon all those who disgraced it!

likewise, the "Word of God" as it is manifested in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ must have (for he rightly deserves) a pure dwelling place. so he dwelt, for nine months, in the pure womb of his mother mary. granted, this was not an absolute necessity. Jesus in his great power could have been born of a sinful woman, for the devil will never overtake him. but, the point here is that the devil should not even be given the opporunity to dwell w/ the Lord! he had his chance before the formation of the world and he made his decision to never dwell w/ the Lord again. he quite frankly does not deserve the honor, while, on the other hand, Jesus Christ deserves only the most sacred ark.

also note, that, just as God chose the ark in which his OT covenant would reside, Jesus Christ--who exists since the beginning of time--chose the ark in which he would reside. now, this is not explicit in the bible, but a logical deduction of biblical truth reveals this reality. afterall, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). likewise, it is God's very commandment that we "honor our father and mother." now, take these truths and apply them to Jesus Christ, as he exists some time before man, pondering the ark in which he will eventually reside. to reject that He chose for himself a sinful woman--a pure ark--is to suggest one of the following:

--either he had the power to honor his mother the greatest way he could--but he didn't, or
--he didn't have the power to honor his mother in such a way

the first conclusion makes jesus a transgressor of his own commandment. the second conclusion makes jesus a weak savior. both are entirely dangerous premises indeed!

so, why is the Immaculate Conception needed? Because it upholds the power, glory, righteousness, and perfect foreknowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

[b]a second reason [/b]why this doctrine is needed is b/c it upholds the timelessness of Jesus' salvific work on the Cross. afterall, his sacrifice was "once for all," not just for those who would come after him. so, in a unique and spectacular way, Jesus saved Mary from the stain of sin before he even mounted the cross to save the rest of us.

"mere speculation" you may say. yet, this too is a logical deduction of biblical truth. first off, we know from the lives of Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) and John the Baptist (Luke 1:15) that God can send his Spirit upon persons who are still in the womb. it is this same Spirit that saved mary while she was yet unborn, and saves each and every one of us after our birth. secondly, mary--even tho she is sinless--calls God "her savior." but how could this be if she is sinless? a popular illustration answers this question:

person A and person B are walking in the wilderness. there is a pit up ahead, of which person B is invariably in danger. person A can save person B in two ways. he can allow person B to fall in, and then rescue him from the pit. or, he can divert the path of person B and keep him from the pit all together. in both instances he has saved person B. so it is w/ God and sin. the normative way in which God saves mankind is by saving us from sin once we have been stained by it--b/c of original sin and/or sin we commit. however, he saved mary by protecting her from sin alltogether. it is really only in this way that mary can be sinless and God still be her savior.

[b]this leads to a third reason [/b]why this doctrine is needed: the immaculate conception upholds the perfect work of Christ on the cross. the perfect savior is the one who does not merely appease sin, but--at least in one example--anticipates it as well. this is what Jesus has done in mary. by protecting mary from the stain of sin, He anticipates its effects w/ his perfect foreknowledge and proves it to be of no avail. he perfects his work on the cross and can thus say w/ perfect truth that he has all power and dominion over sin, and has conquered it in every single way. Christo-centric indeed!!

[b]the final reason [/b]why this doctrine is needed is b/c it comprises an element of the Truth that God has revealed to His Church through the One Sacred Deposit of Faith. i want to know all the truths that God has revealed, and to never be lacking in that regard. i contend that God will look down upon me for not upholding one of the truths that he has revealed to me. it is the challenge and responsibility of my Confirmation in the Holy Spirit to defend ALL the truths of God and His Holy Church, especially when it comes to his own Holy Mother. what will He say to me on the Last Judgment, if he looks back upon a life that did not give proper honor and reverence to his greatest creature and his dearest mother?!?! i take the duty of my Confirmation very seriously, and so it is paramount both that i believe in and defend the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

this should suffice at least as an introductory defense for why the doctrine is needed. in my next post, i will defend the validity of the doctrine.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited June 10, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

now, for the basis of the doctrine.

i find it first helpful to examine the parallels between the the ark of the old covenant--which was a pure vessel--with the mary, the ark of the new covenant. these parallels solidify mary as a "pure vessel" as well.

[b]Parallel #1: Luke 1:39 and 2 Sam. 6:2[/b]

--[b]Luke 1:39 [/b]And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
--[b]2 Sam 6:2[/b] And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.
--[b]note: [/b]in both instance the ark rose to be placed in a new location

[b]Parallel #2: Luke 1:41 and 2 Sam. 6:16 [/b]

--[b]Luke 1:41 [/b]And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
--[b]2 Sam 6:16 [/b]And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart.
--[b]note:[/b] here, both david and john leap in joy before the ark

[b]Parallel #3: Luke 1:43 and 2 Sam. 6:9[/b]

--[b]Luke 1:43 [/b]And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
--[b]2 Sam 6:9[/b] And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?
--[b]note:[/b] this is by far the most striking parallel!

[b]Parallel #4: Luke 1:56 and 2 Sam. 6:11[/b]

--[b]Luke 1:56 [/b]And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.
--[b]2 Sam 6:11 [/b]And the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months: and the LORD blessed Obededom, and all his household.
--[b]note:[/b] both arks resided for 3 months in their new locations.

[b]Parallel #5: Luke 1:28, 31, 48 and Psalms 93:5[/b]
--[b]Luke 1:28, 31, 48[/b]
[b]31 [/b]And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women....
[b]41 [/b]And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS....
[b]48 [/b]For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
--[b]Psalms 93:5 [/b]Thy testimonies are very sure: holiness becometh thine house, O LORD, for ever.
--[b]note:[/b] in both instances, the house of the Lord is forever holy, and testimonies of this are sure indeed (this will be made more clear by the following comments)

with these parallels in mind, lets now turn to the angel gabriel's salutation to mary: "Hail, full of grace, the Lords is w/ thee. Blessed art thou among women" (Luke 1:28, Douay-Rheims Version). some versions translate this as "hail, thou that art highly favored" but this is an inaccurate translation. The Greek term here is kecharitomene, a perfect present participle of the verb charitoo, which denotes "grace". A perfect participle indicates an action completed in the past with existing results, and a present participle denotes continuous or repeated action. for more on this, go [url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm"][b]here[/b][/url].

So kecharitomene means "you who were and continue to be full of and completed in grace". Now grace is not mere unmerited favor, but God's gift of spiritual life and communion with Himself. Sin and grace are opposed (Romans 5:20-21), and grace saves us from sin (Eph 2:5, 8). So Mary's fullness of grace indicates a complete absence of sin. Thus Luke 1:28 provides further evidence of Mary's sinlessness.

in my next post i will address the objections that are often raised against the information that has been provided so far.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited June 10, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

now, on to the common objections.

in response to this evidence from scripture, the most often cited rebuttal is Roman 3:23[list]
[*]For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
[/list]while on the surface this may appear to clearly contradict the doctrine of mary's sinlessness, further disection of the greek (the original language) behind this passage as well as an examination of the context of the verse w/in the letter to the Romans and Psalms (from which it was taken) reveals that Rom 3:23 is not as plain as one may think.

first, the greek. the Greek word for "all" used here is "pas." while on occasion, it can be used to apply to every single person, it is also used to mean "the majority of people." this is made evident by other verses in Scripture in which the same Greek word for "all" is used. they include the following:

--[b]1 Cor 15:22 [/b]For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
--yet we know that those who do not accept the grace of Christ will not be made alive in Him
--not every single person has died physically either (Enoch in Gen 5:24; Elijah in 2 Kings 2:11)

--[b]Rom 11:26 [/b]And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
--yet we know that not every person of Israel will be saved

--[b]Rom 15:14 [/b]And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
--yet not every Roman could be filled w/ every ounce of knowledge.

--[b]Mat 2:3 [/b]When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
--yet surely not every single person in Jerusalem was troubled

--[b]Mat 3:5[/b] Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan
--every single person in Judea?

--[b]Mat 21:10 [/b]And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?
--every single person was moved?

now that we have established that "all" can in fact just mean "the majority," our next question is, "well is that the intent of all in Rom 3:23?" to anser this question, one must look at the context of the verse.

first, we'll look at the verse w/in the context of the letter to the Romans. while Paul is most recognized here for his defense of salvation by faith, he is also interested in how this salvation relates to the tensions between the Jews and the Gentiles. each group claims that the other is better, or more favored by God. the Jews in particular boast of being under the law and God's chosen people. the verses that lead up to verse 23 are basically a hypothetical dialogue between the Jews and Paul. the Jew is here trying to find ways in which his sin cannot be counted as unrighteousness, yet Paul rebukes every one. the "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible" (a protestant commentary by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown published in 1871) articulates this exchange rather well:
[quote]CHAPTER 3

[b]Romans 3:1-8. JEWISH OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.[/b]

[b]1, 2. What advantage then hath the Jew?[/b]--that is, "If the final judgment will turn solely on the state of the heart, and this may be as good in the Gentile without, as in the Jew within, the sacred enclosure of God's covenant, what better are we Jews for all our advantages?"

[i]Answer:[/i]

[b]2. Much every way; chiefly, because[/b]--rather, "first, that."
[b]unto them were committed the oracles of God[/b]--This remarkable expression, denoting "divine communications" in general, is transferred to the Scriptures to express their oracular, divine, authoritative character.

[b]3, 4. For what if some did not believe?[/b]--It is the unbelief of the great body of the nation which the apostle points at; but as it sufficed for his argument to put the supposition thus gently, he uses this word "some" to soften prejudice.
[b]shall their unbelief make the faith of God[/b]--or, "faithfulness of God."
[b]of none effect?[/b]--"nullify," "invalidate" it.

[b]4. God forbid[/b]--literally, "Let it not be," that is, "Away with such a thought"--a favorite expression of our apostle, when he would not only repudiate a supposed consequence of his doctrine, but express his abhorrence of it. "The Scriptures do not authorize such a use of God's name as must have been common among the English translators of the Bible" [HODGE].
[b]yea, let God be[/b]--held
[b]true, and every man a liar[/b]--that is, even though it should follow from this that every man is a liar.
[b]when thou art judged[/b]--so in Psalms 51:4, according to the Septuagint; but in the Hebrew and in our version, "when thou judgest." The general sentiment, however, is the same in both--that we are to vindicate the righteousness of God, at whatever expense to ourselves.

[b]5, 6. But if[/b], &c.--Another objection: "It would appear, then, that the more faithless we are, so much the more illustrious will the fidelity of God appear; and in that case, for Him to take vengeance on us for our unfaithfulness would be (to speak as men profanely do) unrighteousness in God."

[i]Answer:[/i]

[b]6. God forbid; for then how shall God judge the world?[/b]--that is, "Far from us be such a thought; for that would strike down all future judgment.

[b]7, 8. For if the truth of God[/b], &c.--A further illustration of the same sentiment: that is, "Such reasoning amounts to this--which indeed we who preach salvation by free grace are slanderously accused of teaching--that the more evil we do, the more glory will redound to God; a damnable principle." (Thus the apostle, instead of refuting this principle, thinks it enough to hold it up to execration, as one that shocks the moral sense).[/quote]
Paul's obvious intent here is to affirm that neither group is greater then the other. all the objections of the Jew are denied. "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin ([b]Rom 3:9[/b]).


Some may again assert the sinfulness of every human being by citing verses 10-12:[list]
[*][b]10 [/b]As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
[b]11 [/b]There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
[b]12 [/b]They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
[/list]however, Rom 3:10-12 is a reference to Psalms 14:2-3, which is a direct address to the sinfulness of the Jews. Paul cites the Psalms to further affirm his point that the Jews are just as sinful as the Gentiles, and in that way, no better. Psalms 14:2-3 reads as follows:[list]
[*][b]2 [/b]The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
[b]3 [/b]They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
[/list]besides the context of of these words both w/in Romans and Psalms, surrounding verses from Psalms show that not even these words are as all encompassing as the objector may desire. let's look at the verses from Psalms again:

[b]Psalm 14:2-3[/b]
[b]2 [/b]The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [b]and seek God[/b].
[b]3 [/b]They are [b]all gone aside[/b], they are [b]all together become filthy[/b]: there is [b]none that doeth good[/b], no, not one.[list]
[*]Yet in the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims "I trusted in your steadfast love...." (13:5), which certainly is "seeking" after God!

And in the very next Psalm he refers to "those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right...." (15:2). Even two verses later he writes that "...God is with the company of the righteous."

Psalms 112:5 refers to a "good man" (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly (11:23, 12:2, 13:22, 14:14,19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Ps 14:2-3. And references to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9, 22:19, Ps 5:12, 32:11, 34:15, 37:16,32, Mt 9:13, 13:17, 25:37,46, Rom 5:19, Heb 11:4, Jas 5;16, 1 Pet 3:12, 4:18, etc., etc.).
[/list]
so, as is easily seen, scripture refutes the second objection as well.


a third set of proof that refutes both objections comes from everyday examples. even in the world today we do in fact find persons who have not sinned.

[b]--a baby in the womb:[/b] a baby not yet born is still a person, just like us, yet he has not sinned. this is even affirmed, in [b]Rom 9:11 [/b]when Paul says "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;"
[b]--a newborn baby:[/b] likewise, a baby new to this world, who must have every care addressed for him and cannot even understand the world in relation to himself, cannot commit a sin.
[b]--a vegetative, severly mentally-retarded individual:[/b] i have a cousin who falls into this category. she cannot walk. she cannot talk. all she does is grunt. she is just as old as me, but forever confined to a wheelchair. one can only speculate how aware she is of what goes on around her. she cannot think nor can she make any decision for herself. all of her needs must be met by other people. she has never committed a sin. she never will.

in response to this, it is often said, "well the sin in question is not actual sin (sins we commit) but original sin. all men are under the sin of Adam."

to this i say, "AMEN." mary too was under the sin of adam. she was due to recieve the stain of original sin just like the rest of us, and were it not for the intervention of her Savior she would have indeed been born a sinner. however, God protected her from sin--diverted her from the pit--and in so doing saved a person who was under the sin of Adam. actually, Jesus saves ALL people under the sin of adam. the only difference is when he has decided to do so.

so, this objection too fails.

unfortunately, many more objections have been raised against this doctrine. however, i must for the sake of brevity direct you to other sources that address these objections, instead of addressing them here myself. i therefore highly suggest the following articles:
--[url="http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/marian4.html"]Immaculate Conception[/url]
--[url="http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/marian5.html"]Mary's Sinless Life[/url]

at the end of each article you will have objections given, and then the answers to them.


well, i hope all this helped. i'm sure i have forgotten some critical points. i pray that it will suffice. if you have any questions, please let me know.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[dUSt]

And this is why you're the phatmass apologetics director... lol.

[crusader1234]

One day I want to be able to do that... but the Phatmass apologetics booklets should be sufficient when they come out for whatever Jehovah's witnesses come to the door.

[phatcatholic]

neal..............does this answer all of your questions?

bruce..............any comments?

[Neal4Christ]

Yes, phatcatholic, it sure does. I am currently doing some reading and research still, but you cut to the heart of the matter for me. Thank-you, very, very much.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. I went to my first Mass yesterday. The homily was on the first topic that really made me stop and look at Catholicism: the Eucharist! Coincidence? Hmm....I don't believe in accidents!

[Justified Saint]

Neal, great to hear!

That is how Scott Hahn started out and the rest is history.

Those "accidents" can be pretty poweful if you know what I mean