Why do we believe in the Immaculate Conception?

In discussing why we believe in the Immaculate Conception, it’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about in the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain — the meaning of "immaculate" being “without stain”. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a fallen nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

While in the West the doctrine has been taught somewhat negatively – the emphasis being on Mary’s sinlessness - the East has tended to put the accent instead on her abundant holiness. The colloquial term for her is Panagia, the All-Holy; for everything in her is holy.

Although this doctrine is not explicitly stated in Scripture (as indeed the Trinity is not explicitly stated), there is much implicit evidence that the New Testament Church believed in the sinlessness and holiness of the Mother of God.

The primary implicit reference can be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is more accurate than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which tend to render the expression "highly favoured daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favoured daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, but rather it extended over the whole of her life. She must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."

However, this is not to imply that Mary had no need of a saviour. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way - by anticipation.

If we consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: she was not simply taken out of the pit; she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become subject to original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Saviour than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner.

St. Luke also provides us with further evidence that the early Church believed in the sinlessness of Mary. In the first chapter of his gospel, he goes to great pains to recount the event of the Visitation in parallel terms to the recovery of the Ark of the Covenant by David in 2 Sam 6. The following contrasts are notable:

1) 2 Sam 6,2 “So David arose and went…set out for Baala of Judah” Lk 1,39 “And Mary rising up in those days, went…to a town of Judah”

2) 2 Sam 6,9 “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” Lk 1,43 “And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

3) 2 Sam 6,14 “And David danced with all his might before the Lord” Lk 1,44 “the infant in my womb leaped for joy.”

4) 2 Sam 6,11 “ And the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months.” Lk 1,56 “And Mary abode with her about three months.”

When taken in conjunction with Gabriel’s earlier promise to Mary that “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee.” (Lk 1,35) in similar language to that describing the descent of the Shekinah on the ark, it is clear that St. Luke considers Mary to be the fulfilment of the type of the Ark of the Covenant.

In Luke’s mind she is the ark of the New Covenant. Just as the old ark contained the Word of God written on stone, the bread from heaven in the form of manna, and the priestly staff of Aaron; so the new ark contains the Word of God enfleshed, the true bread of heaven, and the high priest of the New Covenant.

Up until its disappearance 500 years earlier the ark had been the holiest thing in all creation – even to touch it or look into it was to bring death or plagues on non-Levites. Similarly then, the ark of the New Covenant would have been viewed as the holiest created being by the early Jewish Christians. Mary’s holiness was by the specific design of heaven, just as the old ark was given as a specific design from heaven.

This understanding of Mary as the ark is not just limited to the Lucan tradition. We also find Johannine understanding of this teaching in the Apocalypse. If we omit the medieval chapter and verse numberings, we see that John’s vision, following the judgement of Jerusalem and the Old Covenant, reveals:

“And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his covenant was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:” Apoc. 11,19-12,1

While some commentators see in the figure of the woman a corporate type of Israel or the Church, these can only be secondary meanings as the same vision reveals two other figures which both have primary individual identities: Satan and the woman’s child – Jesus Christ:

Apoc 12,3 “And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: Apoc 12,9 “And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan.”

Apoc 12,5 “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.”

Thus many fathers of the Church as well as recent Popes have clearly identified the ark/woman as Mary, the Holy Mother of God. This should not be surprising as John is here recapitulating the whole of revelation. Not only is he portraying the breaking in of the New Covenant, but of the new creation itself. The early chapters of Genesis where we see the man and woman in conflict with the serpent at the beginning of the old creation, are now recapitulated with the new Adam and the new Eve in conflict with that same serpent, though this time with positive results. Revelation has come full circle with the final triumph of God over the devil through the woman and her seed as first foretold in Genesis 3,15.

This is why early fathers such as St Irenaeus, St Ephraim, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine could clearly identify Mary as the new Eve as well as the Ark of the Covenant. For in a way that Eve in her disobedience could only be physically the mother of all the living, Mary is now revealed as the true mother of all the living in Jesus Christ:

Apoc 12,17 “And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

It is only reasonable to conclude, then, that just as the first Eve was created without sin and filled with sanctifying grace, so the new Eve who was to “untie the knot of disobedience” wrought by the first, should be also so conceived. Or, as Cardinal Newman put it:

“Now, can we refuse to see that, according to these Fathers, who are earliest of the early, Mary was a typical woman like Eve, that both were endued with special gifts of grace, and that Mary succeeded where Eve failed?” Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception. Cardinal John Henry Newman.

Although arguments from authority can often be the weakest form of argument, as Catholics, it is worth finally pointing out that the ultimate reason for believing in the Immaculate Conception is that this doctrine has been infallibly defined as being revealed by God, and as such our salvation depends on adhering to it:

"Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honour of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart." Ineffabilis Deus, Bl. Pope Pius IX

"UNTIL doesn't necessarily imply anything"

It implies an event happening in the future. So if the Word says that Joseph kept Mary a virgin UNTIL she gave birth, that would imply that Mary lost her virginity sometime after the birth of Jesus. The Word of God does not use Words flippantly. For the Bible could have clearly said that Mary remained a virgin or that Joseph never "knew" her. Or a host of different things to that effect. But the Holy Spirit in His wisdom chose to use those words. Now could you show me Scripture where Mary was "Immaculately" conceived???

JM

Forget about trying to interpret what a word means - the Church has already supplied the interpretation, as related in:

Ah yes, but please continue on in 2 Peter:

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Peter is speaking of Old Testament prophecy. Even though he readily admits that there will be future heresies advocated. Anyway, I don't see the church being spoken of in this passage. He was speaking of the prophets.

"I would however like to know what reason is there to ignore the natural reading of brother = literal brother."

Because until very recently, all Christians believed that Mary was perpetually virgin. Therefore the Scripture was interpreted in the light of this common, ancient belief and thus "brother" was never understood in its literal physical sense.

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed and defended her perpetual virginity, and this doctrine was never part of the original Catholic vs. Protestant controversy. It was something that all were agreed on.

That it has become an issue in more recent times is probably due to the way the English language has developed over the last few hundred years. Words change their force, meaning, and latitude of interpretation over time. e.g. what do the words "gay" and "wicked" mean in colloquial speech now compared to 100 years ago?

Scripture is completely silent about the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. and yet you would consider me mad if I suggested we therefore believe it to be still standing, as it is a fact that the temple was so destroyed. The Church's doctrine about the Mother of God is similarly factual and therefore cannot be denied without denying Truth Himself.

The destruction of the temple in AD 70 was spoken of many times in prophecy. But your reasoning is in even greater shambles. I do not argue that silence (if it existed) concerning the temple should be used to prove that it still remains. I argue that silence (if it existed) concerning the temple does not allow me to formulate my own opinion concerning the temple and teach it as the word of God. I understand that catholics do not base their beliefs on scripture, but if they are confident in this aspect, neither should they attempt word games to make scripture support their already held doctrine.

"I assumed that explanation wasn't really to the faithful, but to those outside your denomination."

Actually it was an essay written for a Dean of Studies at a Catholic seminary! (God bless his cotton socks).

I simply posted it because a person in process of conversion to Catholicism had expressed a need for some further information about the doctrine. As they come from an evangelical background like myself, I thought that it might help.

I wasn't intending to try and convert all you sola scriptura types!! ;)

"I understand that catholics do not base their beliefs on scripture, but if they are confident in this aspect, neither should they attempt word games to make scripture support their already held doctrine."

On the contrary, Catholics believe that Holy Scripture is the very soul of sacred theology. But Scripture itself tells us to hold fast to all the tradtions that we have received from the Apostles.

If by "word games" you are referring to typology, I think you will find we have a very good precedent in the authors of the NT, and the semitic tradition generally.

He is the Doctor of the Church who beautifully let us know that Saint Cleophas was the brother of Saint Joseph. This explains why Saint James, Saint Simon and Saint Jude, the sons of Saint Cleophas, and Saint James the Greater and Saint John, his grandsons, are referred to as "the bretheren of Our Lord."

There's been something I've been ruminating over, perhaps some of you can contribute your thoughts so bear with me a moment. As Stubborn stated, the "brethren of the Lord", though Greek "adelphoi", is believed to be a literal translation of whatever the Aramaic/Hebrew is for brother, with its wider semantic application (brother, cousin, etc.).

However, in apologetics I've also used the argument that when the translators of the Septuagint translated "alma" from the Hebrew (which can mean virgin or maiden), they translated it specifically as "parthenos" which means "virgin". Their translation, then, was a key to the original intent of the passage: namely, when they were permitted to use a language that actually *had* the semantic distinction, they made use of it. If they hadn't used it, and just used a word that meant "maiden", it could be argued that they were showing that no literal virginity was implied in the passage.

Aren't the alma and "brothers of the Lord" argument mutually exclusive? That is, if the LXX translators chose the best Greek word to fit the Hebrew *intent*, and not necessary the literal word, why would the Gospel writers not have done the same and used the Greek word for "cousin" instead of "brother". I suppose you can argue it's a Semiticism...and TantumErgo said it is common NT usage in post #12. But the whole thing rather confuses me, because at the face of it, it looks a bit a priori.

It's because of these difficulties that (despite being a staunch Latin) I tend more toward the Eastern tradition that St. Joseph had childred by a previous marriage. But I'm open to change my mind :) Just trying to shore up the apologetic here so as not to get caught with our pants down.

"First of all your premise is wrong."

Then perhaps you can enlighten me as to when any Christian first started to question her perpetual virginity?

"But even if we assume it to be right, what you're saying is that we should let our opinions overrule the plain assertions of scripture."

Ah, but your claim that it is the plain assertion of scripture is only your opinion. Why should your opinion have more weight than 2,000 years of consistent Tradition?

I see this as nothing but the doctrine of "legalism." (making up practices and beliefs that are not solidly backed up in the new testament). For all the quotes you provided, none directly come out and say that she was sinless-and you would think that such an important thing would be proclaimed numerous times throughout the text (as it is with Christ). I may be wrong, but a catholic once told me that early Christians elevated the status of Mary (immaculate conception) in order to appeal to the pagan, matriarchal tribes of northern Europe. In that case, the church altered the new testament and distorted its true meaning.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has historically been a Lutheran view, but it wasn't ever a "dogma", since the Bible is a bit ambiguous about it (hence why we are having this discussion).

While many Lutheran bodies don't touch on Mary that much, we still have a feast day for the birth of Mary (just recently) and treat her with a lot of respect as the most blessed woman in history.

After Vatican I in 1870, most Lutheran churches began to tone down any overt mention of Mary in the liturgy.

You are reading the word "until" in your cultural way. To us, the word until implies a future event.

But the writers of the Testaments, Old and New, were Jews. They used the word "until" in their cultural way; in many cases to convey a sense of the eternal. So, within the Bible, you may find curious phrases like:

"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children untill the day of her death"(2 Sam. 6:23). She did not have any children AFTER hear death either, though that is what OUR understanding of the word 'until' implies. When the Jews read the word "until", they knew the authors meant "ever".

"That is, if the LXX translators chose the best Greek word to fit the Hebrew *intent*, and not necessary the literal word, why would the Gospel writers not have done the same and used the Greek word for "cousin" instead of "brother"."

Good question, but it could be equally asked of the LXX using the word for "brother" to describe Abraham and Lot. Why would they do it unless they intended carrying over the semiticism into the Greek?

Bearing in mind that the authors of the LXX and the NT were all semites, and thought like semites - with a "non-nuclear" view of family relationships - we are probably demanding a bit much of them to have anticipated the objections of English speaking moderns some 2000 years later.

All I can suggest for further re-inforcement of the Tradition is to speak with an Arab and ask him how many brothers he has. I am not being flippant here - I know an Israeli Arab and I also am familiar with a congregation of Melkite Arabs. Once you get them started, it all makes perfect sense! (Getting them to stop can be another thing entirely!)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.