Can you point me in the direction of why the Immaculate Conception is important in regards to salvation?
A follow up or clarification might be how does Mary’s Immaculate Conception point to Christ’s redeeming act on the cross?
First of all, let’s deal with a common misunderstanding: The Immaculate Conception does not refer to the conception of Christ by the Virgin Mary. Instead, it refers to the conception of Mary in such a way that she was preserved free from all stain of original sin.
I gather that the first question may be based on a common Protestant objection to the Immaculate Conception.
This objection is based on the fact that the Immaculate Conception has been infallibly defined by the Church and so is required belief for Catholics. To know that it is infallibly defined, to know that beliefs that are infallibly defined must be accepted, and to deliberately reject such belief would fulfill the conditions for mortal sin.
So what makes the Immaculate Conception so important that our salvation should hinge on it?
At First Glance
The concern expressed in the objection is understandable. At first glance, the Immaculate Conception does not seem like something that our salvation ought to hinge upon.
After all, it’s not a truth directly connected with how to achieve salvation. It’s not like accepting belief in God, repenting of sin, having faith in Christ’s atonement, and being baptized. It’s not one of what theologians would call soteriological beliefs (from “soteriology”–the doctrine of salvation).
Compared to the the Trinity, the central mystery of the Christian faith, the Immaculate Conception is lower down on what the Second Vatican Council referred to as the “hierarchy of truths.”
This is illustrated, among other ways, by the fact that the Immaculate Conception was not infallibly defined until 1854
So what makes it important enough that our salvation should hinge on accepting it?
Another Way of Looking at the Issue
Consider this fact: The Bible discusses angels and the fact that they are rational, non-physical beings created by God.
We are obliged to believe in the existence of angels because the Bible is the inspired, written expression of God’s word, and as such it has the Holy Spirit as its primary author. Consequently, whatever Scripture asserts (in the proper sense) is something asserted by the Holy Spirit.
You might look at the doctrine of angels (angelology) and say, “This isn’t directly related to our salvation. It might be helpful to us in some way to know about the existence of angels, but they are clearly far down the hierarchy of truths.”
In fact, knowing about the existence of angels is not dissimilar to knowing about the existence of aliens. If God has created other rational physical beings in the universe, it might be of some use to know about them, but that knowledge isn’t essential to our salvation.
One might object that angels have, in fact, interacted with our race, which is true, but that doesn’t make their existence a truth of soteriology. (Just as if it turned out that aliens had interacted with our race, that wouldn’t make their existence a truth of soteriology, either.)
The point is this . . .
It’s a Question of What God Reveals
The reason that we are obliged to believe in the existence of angels but not aliens is that God has revealed the existence of the former to us but not the latter.
For us to reject the existence of angels would be to reject the authority of God as our teacher, and to do that knowingly and deliberately would be a mortal sin.
For those who have been exposed to God’s revelation such that they know he has revealed the existence of angels, their salvation does hinge on their believing in angels–not because the doctrine of angels is high up in the hierarchy of truths, and not because it is a truth directly connected with salvation, but because it is a truth God has revealed.
We are obliged to accept whatever God has revealed. We may have questions at times about what the meaning is of something he has revealed, but if we know for a fact that a particular proposition has been declared to us by God, we must accept it in order to be in union with him.
This is what the Church refers to as having divine faith, which includes belief in God and in whatever he reveals–because of the authority of him who reveals it.
There is another mode of faith, though . . .
Catholic Faith
Catholic faith refers to the faith that we are called to exercise when the Church has definitively proposed something. It also ultimately rests on divine faith, because the Church has no teaching authority apart from God.
However, God has given the Church the authority to teach us and even to infallibly proclaim things to us in certain situations. He also has revealed that this is the case, and so divine faith entails Catholic faith.
One of the key functions of the Church’s teaching authority, or Magisterium, is to help us understand what God has revealed, to make sure that we don’t ignore or misinterpret it, and it has done so in a variety of ways down the centuries.
Early in Church history, the truths that are at the top of the hierarchy of truths were infallibly defined–the existence of one and only one God, the divinity of the Son, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, etc. And over time, once the most important issues were taken care of, the Church has deemed it appropriate to define truths that are lower in the hierarchy.
The Immaculate Conception
By 1854, the Magisterium determined that the time had come to define the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and so Pope Pius IX defined it in that year.
It had already been divinely revealed and thus called for divine faith, but not that it had been infallibly proclaimed by the Church, it came to call for catholic faith as well.
As such, it is obligatory for us, not because it is a truth at the top of the hierarchy of truths, not because it is directly connected with how to be saved, but because it has been infallibly proposed by the Church using the authority given to her by God. To know all this and to deliberately reject it would thus be to reject the teaching authority of God, and thus commit a mortal sin.
That’s true of anything that must be believed by divine faith or by catholic faith, for both are backed by the authority of God.
God, for reasons known to him, deemed it useful for us to know about the existence of angels, and so he revealed that truth. He also deemed it useful for us to know about the Immaculate Conception of his Son’s mother, and so he revealed that as well.
To promote knowledge and ensure belief in the latter revelation, the Church deemed it useful to exercise the authority God gave it to infallibly define it.
The reason why has to do with the reader’s section question . . .
The Immaculate Conception & the Cross
The Immaculate Conception can be related to Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross in various ways. Some of these go beyond Church doctrine and into the realm of theological elaboration. But here are two ways that seem certain. . . .
The Immaculate Conception Prepares for the Cross
First, the Immaculate Conception prepares for the Cross by making Mary a fitting mother for the Son of God, who came to die on the Cross. It isn’t that God had to make Mary immaculate in order to send his Son into the world. He didn’t. God is omnipotent, and his power is not limited. He could send his Son into the world without an immaculate mother if he chose.
But it was fitting that the mother of Christ be a holy woman, and in fact a woman who was a perfect example of holiness. Thus he prepared her for this role from the moment of her conception by giving her a special grace to preserve her from all stain of original sin.
This is why in the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus, in which he defined the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX spoke of it being “fitting” that Christ’s mother would be so prepared, not that it would be “necessary” that she be so prepared.
The Immaculate Conception Reflects the Cross
Second, the Immaculate Conception reflects the cross in that it is what Jesus did on the Cross that made the Immaculate Conception possible.
By preserving Mary from all stain of original sin, God thus redeemed her. He redeemed her in an even more spectacular way that he does us, for he preserved her from falling into sin rather than pulling her out of it after she had fallen into it.
This is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting in part the Second Vatican Council, explains the Immaculate Conception by saying:
508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace”, Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.
But since all redemption comes to mankind through the Cross, it was the Cross itself that made the Immaculate Conception possible.
There is also another way in which the Immaculate Conception reflects the Cross . . .
An Icon of Our Destiny
Although God does not redeem us the same way he redeemed Mary, at the beginning of our lives, he will eventually free us of all stain of original sin as well. We will all one day be “stainless” (immaculate) if we persevere in his grace.
Thus, by redeeming Mary in such a way that she was given this gift while still in this life–and at the very beginning of her life–he made her an icon of what he will one day do for all of us.
Mary thus shows us what we an be–and will become–as a result of Christ’s death on the Cross, if we only persevere in the Christian life. She shows us the fruit of the Cross in one who is a mere human being, like us.
Christ also show us what we will become, for as Scripture says, when he appears again we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.
He, of course, is not just human but also the divine Son of God. Mary, however, is just human, and thus she serves as a direct example of what it is like for a human to be fully conformed to the image of her Son.
All these may offered as reasons why God–and the Church–deemed it important for us to know about the Immaculate Conception.
By the Way . . .
I’m currently preparing a mailing for the Secret Information Club in which I talk about Pope Benedict’s book recommendations for summer reading.
I had to delay the mailing a few days while I’m waiting on eye surgery. (I was able to get the piece composed, but not loaded into the highly graphical interface to send it.)
As a result, there’s still time to sign up!
Assuming all goes well with the eye surgery (prayers appreciated!), I should be sending out the special mailing with Pope Benedict’s summer reading recommendations later this week.
You’ll also get additional fascinating things. In fact, the very first thing you’ll get when you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the Book of Revelation (I composed the questions and took the answers from his writings). Its fascinating stuff, so be sure not to miss out!
To find out what Pope Benedict recommends for summer reading (and it’s not big heavy theological works but stuff anybody can read–sometimes in an hour or less), sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy form:
Just email me if you have any difficulty.
Jimmy, thanks for the great reader response to the “Immaculate Conception!” I look forward to the Pope’s book list.
My family will offer prayers for your surgery.
The proof from Scripture that Mary was conceived without sin is that, had she not been, she would have died on contact with the Holy Spirit, the uncreated life-giving power of God. Direct or indirect contact with the Spirit of God, and even proximity, was lethal to sinners before the death of Christ. That is why Nadab and Abihu died offering alien fire to the Lord (Lev. 10), Uzzah died on touching the Ark, and the High Priest was warned to incense the Holy of Holies, lest he see God and die.
“she would have died on contact with the Holy Spirit”, then Nadab, Abihu, Uzzah are cited.
In scripture I don’t find that any of these ‘contacted the Holy Spirit’. Aaron’s sons offered unauthorized incense at the altar. (“offering before the Lord strange fire”)
Uzzah touched the Ark of the Covenant; no Holy Spirit mentioned in the account.
Contrary evidence is at Judges 3:10, 6:34, 11:29, 13:25, 14:6,19, 15:14. From one book. There are more if you’re interested.
Your version of ‘why immaculate conception’ (there are many) disproven.
@noprem All of the scriptures you cite describe events in which men were empowered by the Holy Spirit to do something – a created participation in the power of God. The gift of prophecy is of this description.
What happened to Mary was something that had never before happened since the dawn of creation: she came into direct contact with the uncreated life-giving power of God. The fate of Uzzah demonstrates that contact with any of the sacred objects of the Tabernacle entailed indirect contact with the uncreated power of God. Uzzah was not a priest, and so he died. (Cf. Numbers 18)
In Numbers 4:1-20 we read of the Kohathites, a clan of the Levites who were responsible for carrying the altar of burnt offering with the sacred vessels. The priests had to cover them first, as the Levites would have incurred death of they touched them or even viewed them.
Judges 3:10, Douay: “And the spirit of the Lord was in him, and he judged Israel.” In him, without touching him? When you insist that Mary was ‘touched’ by HS because it was ‘in her’? And my other cites are similar, which is why I chose them. From one book. There are more if you’re interested. But “interested” means willing to read them for yourself in your own Bible, which you did not do. In which case you’re wasting your time (and JA’s precious blog space!) here.
@noprem In my experience, Christians believe in a triune God (Holy Trinity). The word Trinity is not expressly spoken in the Bible. The implications are clear, but not exact. The reason for this truth is that Jesus Christ left a deposit of faith in the Church to the Apostles so that “…the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.” Mt 16:18.
Unity is a clear message in Christ’s commandment of the Church. While it’s important to carry on discussions about the things of God that are difficult to understand, we should do so with patience for one another.
@dmohrCatholic @noprem
“In my experience, Christians believe in a triune God”
In my experience, many calling themselves Christian believe many different things. Example: Catholics believe in the Trinity, and also believe in its logical extension: Mary is the mother of God. “Protestants” believe in the Trinity but don’t believe in its logical extension. At one time- when the churches had more political clout than they do now, each would burn the other’s adherents at the stake. With impatience, as I read history.
Back to the OP. What I posted stands, as far as I can see from your response. There is no scripture or scripture interpretation that spells out or even infers the Assumption. Not even as to the end of Mary’s life on earth.
do you have scriptures I have missed stating the time [era] and manner of Mary’s ‘leaving’? Scripture, please. There are even fewer “implications” for the Assumption than the for Trinity. (That, at least, has 1 John 5:7,8 (Douay and KJV) going for it.)
@noprem @dmohrCatholic The fact that something was done with “impatience” does not validate its continued conduct.
Regarding scripture and the assumption, I’m not aware of any passages that infer it. But that would be to assume that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. An earlier post pointed out that there is no such Bible passage for that, either. The bible as we know it, 73 or 66 books, did not officially exist until approximately the year 400. Therefore, tradition as referred to by St. Paul, should be kept.
Thanks be to God.
@dmohrCatholic @noprem
“bible never says that the bible is the sole authority” wrote EjonhE. To which I responded:
2 Tim 3:16,17, Douay: “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work”
You saw the “earlier post” but didn’t pay attention to it.
And Paul was referring to the Hebrew scriptures, commonly called the OT. Existing ‘way befofre 400 AD. And, per Paul, not in the hands of Roman or any other kind of Catholic: “What advantage then has the Jew: or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them.” Rom 3:1,2
“tradition should be kept” That Mary was sinless? That she was “assumed” into Heaven? Not traditions exept per the RCC magisterium, and the “Doctors and Fathers” who lived much later than the ones I use: Peter, Paul, James … Both dogmas directly contradicted by plain statements of my exegesists.
@noprem I read the previous posts. I recognized, however, that they point to the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching. None of your proof texts state ‘the bilbe alone is the sole rule of faith.’ Let’s break down 2 Tim 3:16, 17, Douay:
“All Scripture…” – at this time would not include the New Testament
“…inspired of God,” – absolutely, always taught by RCC
“…is profitable to teach,” – who teaches (Paul, Timothy, Peter?)
“…to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:…” – who instructs (Paul, Timothy, Peter?)
“That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work” – My own note: Mary was the first Christian
Paul often refers to the Old Testament, and yes it existed before 400 AD. My point there is that Bishops gathered to make determinations about what books were inspired (you can thank God for that).
“tradition should be kept” refers to another of 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
And I know it was presented before, however, 1 Timothy 3: 15 “…but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”
May God be with you and I look forward to further comments.
@dmohrCatholic ” ”the bilbe alone is the sole rule of faith.’ ”
Not my statement, nor did I mean to infer it. See my comments on Philip and other exegetes approved by God. All who came after those- whether Aquinas, Luther, Chas. Russell, Mary Baker Eddy or others- have to stand in comparison to the God’s word both in words and deeds. You made your choices, I’ve made mine.
How many of those “newbies” chose to teach and act on Mt 24:14? To take Mt 28:19,20 as the command which it surely is, instead of the “proof” of an abstruse, man-made doctrine?
Add dmohrCatholic:
2 Thes 2:15, quoted, not cited, from the Douay: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.”
From the other posts here one would have no idea that Paul thought anything of his or other letters; just “traditions”, which are never mentioned. Yet the RCC assumes that these unspecified “traditions” must override the plain texts of the letters (Romans through Revelation) and introduce complex man-made doctrines.
Who here will admit the necessity of teaching and doing Mt 24:14, from Jesus himself? (A man who wrote none of the scriptures.) If none will respect a simple statement like that, then why do you presume to teach “above that which is written”? (1 Cor 4:6) And your own Peter had a much higher opinion of Paul’s writings than is exhibited on this topic: “And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the <i>wisdom given him</I>, has written to you:” (2 Pet 3;15)
The proof is that Mary came from a line of sinless and divinely conceived children of God. As Isaac was conceived divinely by God through Abraham and Sarah when they were barren:
Genesis 21:1-3: “And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.”
And John the Baptist was conceived divinely by God through Elisabeth, Zacharias’s wife and Mary’s cousin.
Luke 1:6 ” Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. 7 But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.”
Luke 1:17 “But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are tocall him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. 16 He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”
An then, Mary, when “the fullness of time is upon the earth”, to fulfill God’s plan for the salvation of mankind
Genesis 3:15 “I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; it will bruise your head and you will strike its heel”
Isaiah 7:14 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”
Written about 150 A.D.” In the beginning, Joachim is fasting in the wilderness and Anne is mourning in her garden, both of them lamenting their childlessness. An angel appears to Anne, promises her that she will conceive and then directs her attention to her returning husband. Anne and Joachim share a tremendous embrace indicating their great confidence in God that a child will be born, and Anne does conceive. They dedicate their daughter, Mary, to God, keeping her from sin and evil.
As you well know the end and last immaculate conception happens. God sends the Archangel Gabriel announcing to the Virgin of Nazareth, in a few concise words, his divine plan of salvation, and the role that would be hers as virgin Mother of the Savior. And Mary obeyed. She became the Mother of the Son of God who took on our human nature.
The story of Mary’s birth and details about her aging parents, Joachim and Anne, come from apocryphal writings, but one can see the natural progression of God’s work of salvation here. First Isaac to lead a multitude of God’s people, John to prepare God’s people for salvation, and then Mary as the way to bring salvation to earth and finally salvation presents itself as a reality
She is the beloved daughter of God the Father, Mother of the Son of God and the temple of the Holy Spirit.
She is God’s masterpiece. St Augustine praised this marvelous woman in these words:
“He (God) chose the mother he had created and he created the mother he had chosen” (Sermon 69, 3.4).
This is why the Immaculate Conception is important. It is not just because she was pure and a virgin, but that God had patiently orchestrated it and put the entire process into place so that Mary’s sinlessness and purity was able to finally accomplish what God wanted for the world.
@mblouinGenesis 3:15 “I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; it will bruise your head and you will strike its heel” – Enmity is an important word in this verse because it indicates “total opposition.” Furthermore, sin entered the world through man and woman (Adam and Eve), therefore the salvation of the world must be accomplished by God through Man and Woman (Jesus and Mary).
One additional verse that demonstrates Mary’s role is 132:8 “Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified.”
Your previous post brought much to light for me in Marian doctrine – thanks!
@dmohrCatholic
Thank you for your kind words and the additional vesrse.
I do agree with it.
I see Mary and Jesus as Eve and Adam; two souls completing a journey to right the wrong they committed “originally”, making perfect spiritual sense.
If both were made by the hand of God in the Garden should we expect that God would not have them be miraculously concieved by His own hands to then become the saviors of the world?
@mblouin @dmohrCatholic I have to credit the many wonderful apologists who have shown me scripture through the magisterium of the Catholic Church. My journey is ongoing but I remain steadfast (and encourage others) in asking our Savior Jesus Christ to impart The Truth upon my through the Holy Spirt!
Peace of Christ be with you!
@dmohrCatholic
We are all on the same journey. Meeting others as yourself makes the journey that much easier and brighter. An open heart and mind to the Lord is the best way to live IMHO. Also allowing God to take the steering wheel; make all the decisions; lead; guide and tell you what to do minute by minute is what I am working on now……I say that I trust God, but yet I am always finding myself making decisions for Him…. ???!!
Bless you
@mblouin Trusting God is full of complexity, that’s why Christ calls us to persevere to the end. I am grateful for your continued words of encouragement and ask for your prayers as I offer my own a the journey we share!
Blessings
@mblouin “a line of sinless and divinely conceived children of God”
Yet Paul says, ” Wherefore as by ONE MAN sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom ALL have sinned.”
If you believe the claim that the RCC has custody of the Bible, you should respect the Bible as coming from your Church, not deny its plain statements. I take it as the word of God, not ‘the bishops’ or ‘the Council’, and I do respect it. “One man” or “a line of”. Can the choice be a matter of “interpretation”? Does the magisterium equate “one” with “a line”? Not good math, so can it then be trusted with more complicated matters? (1 Cor 3:2; Heb 5:12,13; 1 Pet 2:2)
Which do you choose? (Mr 7:9)
@noprem
One must read the entire verse and bible to glean its message not just the bits and pieces.
Adam was the pattern for Jesus to come; a human being in all righteousness; sinless; conceived by God and placed in a sinless vessel to be born and raised according to God’s laws until the time was right that he should become the gift for all mankind; the justification for all sin; the final correction for Adam’s Original Sin in the Garden.
I will always chose the bible and the RRC.
Romans 5:14 ” Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.”
Romans 5:15 ” But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!”
Romans 5:16 “Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.”
Romans 5:17 ” For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!”
Romans 5:19 ” For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”
1 Corinthians 15:21 “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.”
Thank for the opportunity to share the gospel with you.
Blessings.
@noprem
Do you believe that the RCC would deny that God conceived trhrough Sarah, Isaac to rule a great nation of believers? Do you believe that they would deny that God conceived through Ann, Mary to be the sacred vessel? Through Elizabeth, John to prepare the way for Jesus? And do you believe that the RCC would deny that God conceived through Mary, Jesus, the Christ who would redeem the world?
They would not and cannot. This is a generational line prepared by God for the salvation of mankind. The bible contains the genealogies for a reason and this is one of them. To establish the truth of and corroborate the reason for the Immaculate Conception.
Blessings
Please note carefully the order of events in your Bible. I believe you’ll find it thus:
Jehovah creates spirit creatures- angels.
He creates the heavens and the earth.
He creates Adam and Eve and offers them everlasting life in paradise, if they obey.
The disobey and pay the stated penalty for their sin: death. Not life in heaven; death.
Their offspring- including Mary and Joseph- are born into sin, and subject to death.
Therefore your second paragraph is unscriptural teaching. Catholic teaching, but not scriptural teaching. Adam was the pattern for humans to follow; if he had remained sinless he would still be alive along with his descendants, ‘filling the earth and subduing it’. It would not have been necessary for Jesus to offer himself as a ransom sacrifice, because there is no sacrifice needed for perfection. Just obedience.
‘Sharing the gospel’ means sharing the good news of the kingdom. (Mt 24:14) What do you see here on the earth when that kingdom is established? (Mt 6:9,10)
@noprem
“Their offspring- including Mary and Joseph- are born into sin, and subject to death.”
Mary is not the offspring of Adam – but the conceived sinless child of God through Ann. Joseph is born into sin and subject to sin and that is why he is NOT the father of Jesus, but God.
Yes, it is true that if Adam had not sinned all would still be alive in the Garden.
Isaiah 25:8 “he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth. The LORD has spoken”.
Revelation 21:4 “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
@mblouin @noprem
” [Mary is] the conceived sinless child of God through Ann” Again, that’s Catholic doctrine, not scripture.
“Yes, it is true that if Adam had not sinned all would still be alive in the Garden.” True, because scriptural. So, if that was God’s original purpose for man, how will he get us back to a paradise on earth?
He promised to do so in David’s psalm: “But the just shall inherit the land, and shall dwell therein for evermore.”
He says he’s capable of it: “So shall my word be, which shall go forth from my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but it shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper in the things for which I sent it.”
When Jesus sacrificed himself- perfect man for perfect man- he negated Adam’s sin, which poisoned all of us.
But we don’t see paradise restored. When will it happen, do you think, and what is our part in it, if any?
@noprem @mblouin
Mary is the daughter of Ann and Joachim, she is not the child of God. Jesus is the only divine person (2 natures: divine and human).
Adam and Eve sinned: (re: “Yes, it is true that if Adam had not sinned all would still be alive in the Garden.”)
Genesis 3:6 “The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.”
Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
I am unable to post the full text from the following scriptures, but they are common to all Bibles and demonstrate God’s plan with attention to the ark of the covenant:
Psalm 132: 1-8
Rev 11:19, 12:1-17
Luke 1:39-45
Peace of Christ and the Holy Spirit be with you.
Mary is the daughter of Ann and Joachim, she is not the child of God. Jesus is the only divine person (2 natures: divine and human).
Adam and Eve sinned:
Genesis 3:6 “The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.”
Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
The following scriptures provide a look at Mary’s role in salvation:
Psalm 132: 1-8
A song of ascents.
I
Remember, O LORD, for David
all his hardships;
2How he swore an oath to the LORD,
vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob:*
3“I will not enter the house where I live,a
nor lie on the couch where I sleep;
4I will give my eyes no sleep,
my eyelids no rest,
5Till I find a place for the LORD,
a dwelling for the Mighty One of Jacob.”
6“We have heard of it in Ephrathah;*
we have found it in the fields of Jaar.*
7Let us enter his dwelling;
let us worship at his footstool.”b
8“Arise, LORD, come to your resting place,c
you and your mighty ark.
Revelation 11:19
“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.”
Rev 12:1-6
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman* clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.a 2She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.* 3Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon,* with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.b 4Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.c 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.* Her child was caught up to God and his throne.d 6The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.
Rev 12:13-17
When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.f 14But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle,* so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year.g 15The serpent,* however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current. 16But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth. 17Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.
Luke 1: 39-45
During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah, 40where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,s 42cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.t 43And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord* should come to me? 44For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45Blessed are you who believed* that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”u
@dmohrCatholic @noprem @mblouin
Just to add to the verses dmohrCatholic provided,
Luke 1:39-45 also parallels 2 Samuel 6 in many ways. In 2 Samuel 6 David exclaims “How can the ark of the Lord come to me”. Elizabeth says of Mary, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” David leaps and dances before the ark; the baby John the Baptist leaps with joy within Elizabeth’s womb. The ark of the Lord remained in Obed-edom 3 months; Mary remained with Elizabeth for 3 months. The ark contained symbols of the old covenant — manna, the staff of Aaron, and the tablets of the law; In Mary’s womb was Christ — the Bread of Life, the new law, and the one priest. Luke seems to be drawing a parallel between the ark and Mary to show that Christ is the fulfillment of these old testament symbols. The ark was made of precious materials and Uzzah was struck dead just for touching it, because of what the ark contained. Mary also was conceived pure and remained pure from the stain of sin because she is the mother of Christ. How strange it would be for the ark of the old testament, which only contained symbols of God’s presence, to be without stain but the mother of the one true God Jesus Christ to be somewhat less than the ark and be stained with sin.
@EJohnE @noprem @mblouin EJohnEThanks for picking up on additional scripture!
@EJohnE
You can compare any words about Mary with the same words about anything or anyone else- and waste your time completely. But not mine.
@dmohrCatholic
Luke 1 involves Mary, the mother of Jesus. Nothing else in your post does. The “woman” of Revelation 12 is not Mary, unless you find scriptures elsewhere that show her having such a battle with Satan. Revelation is John’s vision of Heaven, in John’s future, therefore in our present or immediate future. If you believe- AS THE OP STATES- that Mary was assumed into Heaven in our distant past, then she is not battling with anyone. Her son already had “beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” (Lu 10) It is Michael who battles with Satan and evicts him from Heaven. (Rev 12)
In future, cite or quote a scripture or two, show its application to the OP, and take a cool-off period.
@noprem
Just as Eve was the mother of all humanity, the new Eve, Mary, is the mother of Christ, and through Christ redeemed humanity, the Church (“Woman, behold, your son”. “Behold, your mother.” John 19). Wouldn’t it be odd if the old Adam and Eve were created without original sin, but only the new Adam (Christ) was conceived without original sin and not the new Eve (Mary)? As with the ark, we would again have a situation where the old testament sign is greater than the new testament fulfillment. That’s why Catholic teachings about Mary are more consistent with scripture, even if they aren’t explicitly stated, than the man-made traditions of men. Truth is never a waste of time.
@noprem I got a little carried away in previous post. In general, the connection for such lengthy scripture is that we see:
Old Testament – Ark of the covenant was without stain and considered sacred; Enmity (complete opposition, battle with satan) between the ‘woman’ and her ‘offspring.’ Christ is Mary’s offspring – specifically.
Revelation 11 & 12: John begins speaking about the ark – was that a reference to the ark of the old covenant (lost for hundreds of years) in Heaven, or the Ark of the New Covenant (Mary who gave birth to Christ’s Humanity)?
John’s vision is of Heaven, but Heaven is without time, therefore it describes past, present and future (until the second coming).
The scriptures are all unified and point to a central figure in Christ. Mary, too, points to Christ. Consider the Gospel of John 2:5, the Wedding at Cana. “His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.””
“Christ is Mary’s offspring – specifically … “His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.””
Those are the only true [scripturally verifiable] statements in your post.
You could benefit from a study of the Bible from scratch.
@EJohnE “That’s why Catholic teachings about Mary are more consistent with scripture, even if they aren’t explicitly stated,”
If not stated, it’s nonsensical to say they’re consistent with scripture.
Your “reasoning” is repeating RCC teachings with wishful thinking. They disagree with even your own Catholic Bibles.
Actually it makes better sense to think of Jesus as the ark and not Mary.
@Max43 There was a physical ark at one time. (That’s not a popular belief these days, but it was OK with Jesus. Mt 24:38) If there’s a worldwide disaster coming again- can’t be a flood, and there are many more people today- into what will people go to be saved physically?
Not Jesus or any one man or vessel/vehicle. What do you think?
A sinless Mary is contrary to God’s stated saving purpose in sending Jesus to die. Life for life; perfect man (Jesus only) for perfect man (Adam only); Adamic sin paid off therefore; our own sins paid off by our deaths; resurrection to new life, whether on earth or in Heaven.
De 19:21; Rom 5:8,12,19; 6:7,23; Ps 37:29; Rev 7; Mt 6:10.
Absolutely no mention of Mary’s death or assumption in scripture.
From the Baltimore of 1941:
23b. What is the Bible?
The Bible is the written word of God, committed to His Church for the instruction and sanctification of mankind.
23c. What do we mean when we say that the entire Bible is inspired?
When we say that the entire Bible is inspired we mean that its principal author is God, though it was written by men whom God enlightened and moved to write all those things, and only those things, that He wished to be written.
23e. Are all the passages of the Bible to be understood according to our modern manner of expression?
No; some of the passages of the Bible are not to be understood according to our modern manner of expression, since they contain certain figures of speech, parables, and literary forms used by the people of ancient times but not employed in the present.
23j. Has Divine Tradition ever been committed to writing?
Divine Tradition has been committed to writing, especially by saintly writers called Fathers, who lived in the early centuries but were not inspired, as were those who wrote the Bible
23k. Has Divine Tradition the same force as the Bible?
Yes; Divine Tradition has the same force as the Bible, since it too contains God’s revelation to men.
Why should it be more difficult for me and others to understand the homely parables of Jesus, explained by him to those who were willing to listen, than to understand the abstruse writings of the “Doctors” and “Fathers”, whose convoluted writings gave scholasticism a bad name? (Anyone care to expound on the theological difference between ‘homoousios’ and ‘homoioúsios’? Careful- the stake awaits the loser!)
In any case, a quick look over this or any Catholic blog should convince a reader that Divine Tradition has MORE force to modern Catholics than “the written word of God.”
@noprem
“Why should it be more difficult for me and others to understand the homely parables of Jesus, explained by him to those who were willing to listen…”
There are some things that are indeed pretty simple and straight-forward to understand that no one could possibly ever argue about (sarcasm), such as Jesus’ blunt words in John 6:53: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. ”
Other scriptures in the bible are not as easy to interpret, such as what Peter says of Paul in 2 Peter 3:16: “There are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. ” And if it was difficult in St Peter’s day, then it has to be even more difficult now since we don’t have the same historical and cultural contexts that readers back then did.
And the bible never says that the bible is the sole authority for faith and morals; but the Church is: 1 Tim 3:15: “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”
Now maybe someone will say that I am distorting the scriptures above. Then all the more a visible authority is necessary. Luckily, Jesus thought of that: Matthew 16:19, Jesus speaking to Peter: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
I think, in charity, that even though you disagree with the Catholic approach to scripture and authority, isn’t what you believe to be the confusion of Catholics at least understandable? I can tell you sincerely that the Catholic faith seems quite reasonable to me.
May God bless you in your search for the truth.
@EJohnE”bible never says that the bible is the sole authority”
2 Tim 3:16,17, Douay: “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work”
“All scripture, every good work, perfect” [in this case its basic meaning of complete], and so I have found it to be. Unless you have another “interpretation” of the key words.
Back to the OP topic. What I posted stands, as far as I can see from your response. There is no scripture or scripture interpretation that spells out or even infers the Assumption. Not even as to the end of her life on earth. The gospels mention her as necessary to the subject, as Judas, Caesar, Barnabas and others are mentioned in their places. Paul refers to her once, as “a woman”, at Gal 4:4, worth quoting with his conclusion at v.5:
“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: That HE [Jesus] might redeem them who were under the law”
Otherwise there are no references to her. Which means that the RCC claim to find the Assumption anywhere in scripture is ingenuous- or something else. It is entirely man-made. Supporting such a doctrine, in turn, requires more and more recourse to non-Biblical “teachings” which more and more complicate simple salvation doctrine. That,in turn, is indeed a matter of life and death, and a creator God owes us something that can be understood by ordinary humans. That he has done with the Bible, and I’m inclined to add ‘in spite of, not through, Doctors and Fathers’. (Acts 4:13 ibid: “Now seeing the constancy of Peter and of John, understanding that they were illiterate and ignorant men, they wondered: and they knew them that they had been with Jesus.”)
As to the OP topic, do you have scriptures I have missed stating the time [era] and manner of Mary’s ‘leaving’?
@noprem
“As to the OP topic, do you have scriptures I have missed stating the time [era] and manner of Mary’s ‘leaving’?”
The topic is “Why Is the Immaculate Conception Important?” You’ve actually switched the topic to the Assumption, but I think the arguments are pretty much the same. The premise of your argument seems to be that if it’s important enough for our salvation then it must be explicitly spelled out in scripture. You see a proof as being 2 Tim 3:16,17 which says that ALL scripture that is inspired by God is profitable to reprove and correct and instruct so that the man of God may be perfect — and that the profitability of ALL inspired scripture towards our perfection means that ONLY inspired scripture is necessary for our salvation.
I certainly agree with the scripture, but not your interpretation. Aren’t you doing some implying of your own? The scripture does not explicitly state that ONLY scripture is necessary for our salvation. Paul doesn’t even say that his letter is one of the inspired scriptures that he is referring to. By analogy, if my doctor says that all the exercises on a certain list are profitable for my fitness and emotional well-being so that I can be perfectly healthy, then does that mean I no longer need to eat or sleep — or even listen to the doctor who gave me the list? Why should I trust the list if I no longer trust the doctor who gave it to me?
Jesus never tells us what scriptures are inspired. The scriptures never tell us which scriptures are inspired; some of them hadn’t even been written at the time Paul wrote this. The list of inspired scriptures was given to through the authority of the Church, which is supported by the scripture I stated before (Matthew 16:19).
Otherwise, you have basically claimed this authority for yourself or for some other party of your choosing (Martin Luther) who has claimed it for himself, but for which there is no scriptural support.
So no, I do not have scriptures that explicitly reveal the Assumption or Immaculate Conception of Mary or that they are necessary beliefs for our salvation. Like you, I believe that there are many things that are inferred or implied or just plain make sense even though they are not explicitly spelled out as I might wish them to be. Unlike you, I have a visible authority which IS backed up by scripture.
It doesn’t make sense to argue about things such as the Assumption or Immaculate Conception if we don’t begin from a common starting point. In order to even begin to dialogue with Protestants, many Catholics will often take on the presupposition that not only must everything be supported by scripture, but that everything must be proved from scripture that explicitly states it. But the real argument here is whether Christ left us any visible authority (even the New Testament scriptures didn’t come until after he ascended). Besides being practical, I’ve given scripture that supports the belief that Christ did indeed give us a visible authority with Peter and the Church. You will likely disagree, but let me ask you: Without this visible authority, how is it even possible to know which scripture is inspired by God? Are we to be similar to the Mormons who tell us to read their scriptures and if we feel a burning in our bosom then it means it’s inspired scripture?
@EJohnE
Arguments are indeed “pretty much the same”. Without the existence of one man-made tradtition there’s no need for the other. Two traditions added to God’s word; no point, no progress in understanding God. Which is why Jesus came to earth, he said. “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth hears my voice. ” John 18
Christ left visible authority. One early example was Philip, who explained scripture to the Ethiopian eunuch, a superior person who was also humble. Philip thus explained Isa 53 to me, also. Later exegetes were Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and the Gospel writers. All AFTER Jesus left the earth. There are many today claiming to fill their shoes; you have your names and I have mine. I trust and use mine because the stand up to scriptural testing, and their fruitage is Christian and Godly, not from “the traditions of men.”
As to “I do not have scriptures that explicitly reveal the Assumption or Immaculate Conception of Mary”, why on earth not? Consider the effort put by your Church into those doctrines. Do they teach men about the Kingdom of God? Scripture says to do so. (Mt 24:14; Mt 6:9,10) Just look around at the panoply associated with your current Assumption festivals- all that effort, but are you passing the scriptural test our Lord talked about at Mt 7:21? And, it’s not his test, it’s God’s.
“Jesus never tells us what scriptures are inspired” Really? I find that he referred often to the word of God, comparing it to “traditions of men”- those held by the leaders of the mainstream religion of his day. The religion that rejected his teachings.
@noprem
“Christ left visible authority. One early example was Philip, who explained scripture to the Ethiopian eunuch, a superior person who was also humble. Philip thus explained Isa 53 to me, also. Later exegetes were Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and the Gospel writers. All AFTER Jesus left the earth. There are many today claiming to fill their shoes; you have your names and I have mine. I trust and use mine because the stand up to scriptural testing, and their fruitage is Christian and Godly, not from ‘the traditions of men.’ ”
By your fruits you shall know them — that is if you’re even fruitful. All Christendom condemned contraception until the early 1900’s. Now, besides the Catholic Church, who does? Acceptance of contraception is an example of the “traditions of men” that Paul warned against, not the sacred traditions he exhorted us to hold fast to by word of mouth or letter. (2 Thess 2:15) I think it’s a little presumptuous to say that St. Paul taught you something when (hopefully some day) he will probably tell you that you misunderstood. You ask “why on earth not?” as to why some dogmas aren’t explicit in scripture (even though they are implied). You ask because you are locked in to the non-scriptural “scripture alone” mindset which contradicts 2 Thess 2:15 as well as the power of binding and loosing given to the Apostles and the giving of the keys of the kingdom to Peter specifically.
You think Catholics way-overemphasize tradition. I think it just seems that way because most non-Catholic Christians hardly emphasize it at all and have been trained to make any tradition they don’t like to automatically be the man-made tradition St. Paul warns about, and not the sacred tradition he exhorts us to follow. We can learn much from scripture directly, but it is an authority because the Church tells us they are inspired by God and therefore trustworthy and in conformity with the faith that has been passed down (tradition). And scripture confirms this authority (Matt 16:18-19) as do the beliefs of Christians from the beginning and throughout the centuries.
If there is to be unity among Christians, a visible teaching authority (apostolic authority and succession) is needed to resolve disagreements on what scripture teaches, and even what is or isn’t scripture to begin with. You haven’t even supplied an objective basis for determining which scripture is inspired and which is not. On what basis is the Gospel of Thomas or other writings that were circulating excluded? ALL scripture is inspired, right? If anything, your basis is circular: an authority on the proper role and interpretation of scripture and in determining what is or isn’t scripture is based on whether or not it stands up to your test of what you’ve already come to believe the scriptures are and what they mean. This is really no different than claiming the authority for yourself. Indeed, beware the traditions of men. How would you convince a non-Christian to read and believe St. Paul’s writings. The Mormon “burning in the bosom” approach? Faith is a gift. I’m just saying that there is more rational support for and consistency within the Catholic faith.
Sacred scripture, sacred tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church are the authorities which are needed, complementary, and do not contradict. It is similar to when non-Christians try to juxtapose two scriptures that appear to contradict. Scripture does not contradict itself, so the problem is a misinterpretation of one or both of the apparently contradictory scriptures. Similarly, if scripture and the teachings of the Church appear to contradict, the problem is a misinterpretation of scripture and/or the Church’s teaching. In Protestantism there is no such authority — it’s as if every man was given the keys to the kingdom and is infallible, or they assign that charism to someone else of their own choosing rather than who Christ chose. And like the Mormons who believe in a great apostacy, Protestantism believes there was a great falling away after Christianity became legal, even though Jesus said the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against his Church (Matt 16:18) and that he would be with us always (Matt 28:20) and that the Spirit of truth would guide them to all truth and declare to them the things that are coming (John 16:13). On what basis would you argue against the Mormon faith that would use those same scriptures to say that they refer to the remnant who came to the Americas and re-established Christ’s true Church as the Church of Latter Day Saints?
@EJohnE “you are locked in to the non-scriptural ‘scripture alone’ ” Absolutely not true, as my Philip posts prove. That is defective discussion, done deliberately.
How’s that Bible study going?.
Although a Catholic, I have never been satisfied by the explanations of why Mary had to be sinless.
Mind you, I do not doubt it. I just mean that I am unconvinced by the reasons I found.
The explanation I can relate to most is this (and I came up with this myself, so caveat emptor — it has no imprimatur)
– God created the idea of a family as composed of a father, a mother, and (usually) children.
– The spiritual family in which we are born into has a (surprise!) Father (God), a mother (Mary), and children (Jesus as firstborn, and all baptised Christians). That is how we are borthers and sisters. We have the same parents. That is why Chris is our brother. We have the same parents as him.
– When children are born, they get the nature of their parents. A Chinese mother will impart her Chinese nature on her offspring. A mother born in original sin will impart her sinful nature onto her children.
– When we are ‘reborn’ or ‘born again’ (through baptism), we inherit the nature of our parents (God and Mary; one divine, the other human). If Mary was born in original sin, we would be ‘reborn’ in original sin (again!)
Francis:
“The spiritual family in which we are born” does indeed have a mother- identified straight from God’s word, not from the traditions of men:
“But that Jerusalem which is above is free: which is our mother” Gal 4:26. And the very next verse has some interesting exegesis:
“For it is written: Rejoice, you barren, that bear not: break forth and cry you that travail not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that has a husband.”
In your RCC teachings you’ll find this passage and others like it applied to Mary. The inspired Bible writers thought otherwise.
You can also reference Php 3:20,; Gen 17:16; Gal 4:31 for just a few references to other women, important to our salvation, who are not Mary.
@noprem That is interesting noprem. But It is looks rather merely symbolic. The then-current Jerusalem is the mother of Jews. The Jerusalem ‘above’ is the mother of Christians. It is quite symbolic and not *really*. My country is not my real mother even though I often refer to it as such.
With regard to ‘traditions of men’ – how do you know that Galatians is the word of God? Which verse in the Bible did you get that?
Symbolic? Of course. But it’s also revealed truth for these last days. Mary never was my mother nor was she ‘mother of the Church’. The Jerusalem above is my mother now. (This is a change for me, because I’m Gentile.) You can get insight into the importance of this by reflecting on the role of physical Jerusalem as the earthly seat of Jehovah’s government under the Jewish system. The “Jerusalem above” is the seat of that government for which Jesus told us to pray: Mt 6:9,10. He has no more need of an earthly seat; not Jerusalem, not Rome, not Brooklyn, not Worms. ‘He has installed upon ZION his King’ says the inspired psalmist, at Ps 2 & 110. Note the future tense.
For “my country” I prefer “the country where I live.” How can I pledge allegiance to one of man’s countries when I’m a sworn ambassador for Jehovah’s kingdom under Christ Jesus? And you’ll recall that man’s rulers have given the words “motherland” and “fatherland” a very bad connotation.
You could benefit from a study of the Bible from scratch.
Galatians? That man also wrote 2 Tim 3:16,17.
Yo, Jimmy. How are the eyes doing?
Mary is third in the list of those born to barren parents by the grace of God. Isaac was first as “the Father of a Mighty Nation”. John is “the Baptizer” and “the one who shall pave the way for Christ. And Mary, the “Holy Grail” , Mother of the human Christ.
Mary was planned from the Fall of man as were Isaac and John to redeem the world IN CHRIST. 144,000 souls suffered and were made pure like gold; Christ suffered and paid for them at the cross, returning them to the Father within himself as the “The Treasure of
Israel”.
Therefore, “by the first Adam came death, by the second Adam (Christ) comes life'”
All who are born from that time on are pure, no longer in original sin; golden and pure.
What we are able to do is tarnish that gold with sin and wrong doing for which we must repent.
Our purpose is to build the body of God with Christ as the head; by our works we become as the arms, legs,torso, etc.. of God.
Great answer Jimmy!
Can someone help me find where this happened? –“By preserving Mary from all stain of original sin, God thus redeemed her. He redeemed her in an even more spectacular way that he does us, for he preserved her from falling into sin rather than pulling her out of it after she had fallen into it.”
None of the authors of the NT mention this and unaware of it. You would think that Jesus would have said something about it if He wanted us to be devoted to His mother.
Max43. There are three scriptures that involve Mary, the mother of Jesus, which are important to the RCC.
Luke 1:38, Douay: “And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to your word. And the angel departed from her.”
John 2:5, ibid: “His mother says to the waiters: Whatsoever [Jesus] shall say to you, do.”
John 19:26,27, ibid: ” When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and [John], he says to his mother: Woman, behold your son. After that, he says to the disciple: Behold your mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.”
Out of these we’re supposed to learn that (a) Mary is sinless; (b) she is the mother of God; (c) the Catholic Church is the only true church and has existed from time immemorial; (d) the Church wrote the Bible and has the only correct teaching of it.
Recently to RCC had its annual celebration of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, which occasion generated this OP. The sinlessness and the assumption are not only not found in scriprure, they direclty contradict- even negate- the reason Jesus came to earth from Heaven, according to the Bible, anyway. Mat 20:28; Mar 10; 1Ti 2:6. And it distracts Catholics from doing the will of God according to Jesus: Mt 24:14.
@noprem
“Out of these we’re supposed to learn that (a) Mary is sinless; (b) she is the mother of God; (c) the Catholic Church is the only true church and has existed from time immemorial; (d) the Church wrote the Bible and has the only correct teaching of it.”
Out of those verses, I believe we are supposed to ASK MORE QUESTIONS and research more biblical evidence from all the RCC literature available to us.
Further evidence:
In The Protoevangelium of James it says that “the High Priest called to ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9). Origen says:“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248])
@mblouin
You should look up the Proto and Anna [proposed mother of Mary] on newadvent.org’s Encyclopedia- hardly an anti-Catholic site. You’ll find that the writers of a century ago were reluctant to say anything like ‘this is gospel’. Just the opposite- you’ll find words like ‘unreliable, doubtful, legendary’ … No new scholarship has changed that.
In any case, “The sinlessness and the assumption are not only not found in scriprure, they direclty contradict- even negate- the reason Jesus came to earth from Heaven, according to the Bible, anyway. Mat 20:28; Mar 10; 1Ti 2:6” is still true.
How’s that Bible study coming?
@noprem
The study is coming along nicely. Thank you for the website info. I start a study on the Old Testament Bible Prophets tomorrow. Maybe I can glean something new from that….?
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17). All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness — but not only Scripture.
Taken from “Scripture Catholic”
:
“Exodus 25:11-21 – the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.
2 Sam. 6:7 – the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.
1 Chron. 13:9-10 – this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.
1 Chron. 15 and 16 – these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark – veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.
Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 – Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.
Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 – John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.
Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 – How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.
Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 – Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.
Rev 11:19 – at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.
mblouin.
“Taken from “Scripture Catholic” … but that’s not part of my theology, nor an obligation for me to read or believe. But ‘the Bible was given to the world by the Catholic Church’ I’m told, over and over. So if we stay with scripture- not “Scripture Catholic”- we’re on neutral ground for a study of God, the God of the Bible. Then we can see if it’s worth moving on to “Fathers and Doctors”:
Ex 25: Mary was the bearer of Jesus in her womb. The rest of the statement is an extrapolation by those who were obligated to believe in other special qualities of Mary, none of which are scriptural. Making up commentary to fit their beliefs; I thought only JWs did that. 🙂
2 Sam: What happened with Uzzah and the Ark has been covered previously. “Even more immaculate and undefiled” makes no sense. Can something be better than perfect? And note that “immaculate” is borrowing a magisterium word about Mary and applying it to another object entirely. Circular reasoning.
1 Chron: “For >God to dwell< within >Mary the Ark<” The last phrase is unscriptural; the first is scriptural only if Jesus is God. A separate topic, not proven, but see below.
Cutting to the chase: Let’s see what a study of a simpler text tells us. At Rev 3:12 Jesus says, according to my NWT, “The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine.”
I take this to mean that Jesus has someone he calls ‘his God’ (four times, here), to whom he defers but who has given Jesus certain privileges. What do you think?
For instance, do you find any significant difference in wording in various Catholic-approved Bibles; ? (Not “my God”, for instance?)
If the scripture has the simple meaning I assign to it, based on the plain language, then how can Jesus be “the only true God”?
Is the Jesus speaking here the same one the RCC considers to be Almighty God?
Where is the speaker at the time of the speech? In Heaven, or somewhere else?
Does Magisterium’s understanding of the language mean that “my God” does NOT mean “my God”?
If not, what does “my God” mean?
noprem,
I understand your truth… The Bible is scriptural, correct and the infallible Word of God in your theology; you are not “obliged to read “Scripture Catholic”. To say that bible “scripture” is neutral is a problem for me because it took 400 years to construct after many debates; arguments; government and social considerations for the sake of peace; king decrees and wars, and finally the fact that the “writers” actually BURNED written works that they did not include in it so that NO ONE could have another opinion outside of theirs. That also would make the God spoken about within the Bible neutral. That is definitely a problem for me because the God I know is NOT neutral in that His love and will for us is anything by neutral. =noprem= “The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine.” =mblouin=”The one who conquers” means anyone who overcomes his/her ego, rejects the principles of the world and devotes him/herself to God will become “a pillar in the temple of my God”. We, God’s people are the “pillars” of “the temple of God”. We, God’s people, by our good works are growing the body of God upon which stands Christ as the head. Scriptural backing for this is found in Galatians 3:24-28 and 1 Corinthians 12 =noprem=” I take this to mean that Jesus has someone he calls ‘his God’ (four times, here), to whom he defers but who has given Jesus certain privileges. What do you think?” =mblouin= He has Become God and all treasure is dispensed through and by him…Ephesians..1;22 23 Christ is the Head of the Church (Kingdom OfGod) which is Gods Body. Many paths..One Truth…….. In the Kingdom of Heaven (KOH) you will notice in reading the Parables that the KOH is a WORKS based Kingdom. The Parables are about the Workers of the Kingdom INCREASING the fruitor Gods GOODS . =noprem=”For instance, do you find any significant difference in wording in various Catholic-approved Bibles; ? (Not “my God”, for instance?)” =mblouin= I do not use a Catholic Bible as my primary bible. I use an NIV, or KJV usually =noprem= “If the scripture has the simple meaning I assign to it, based on the plain language, then how can Jesus be “the only true God”? Is the Jesus speaking here the same one the RCC considers to be Almighty God? Where is the speaker at the time of the speech? In Heaven, or somewhere else? Does Magisterium’s understanding of the language mean that “my God” does NOT mean “my God”? If not, what does “my God” mean?” =mblouin= The Kingdom of GOD(KOG) is Faith based. You recieve the Spirit By Faith in the Risen Saviour. In the KOH Jesus says he is Eating and Drinking which are metaphors for Partaking OF or sharing,, In the KOH Jesus comes here to Harvest Israel. He did not sow but he came to reap; to collect the fruit. After he has done so HE says “I will no longer Drink of the Vine (Israel) until I drink it NEW in my FaTHERS kINGDOM”, aka the Kingdom of God(KOG)… Jesus also says In the Kingdom of Heaven I was as one Eating and drinking, harvesting)but in the Kingdom of GOD I will be as One who SERVES!! at the Table altar… No longer a harvester he has now upon ressurection become THE Distributor of wealth or Spirit. He has Become God and all treasure is dispensed through and by him…Ephesians..1;22 23 Christ is the Head of the Church (KOG) which is Gods Body. The Kingdom of God is above the Firmament in Heaven ..created upon the Ressurection of Christ. Faith based, It is where the Holy Spirit comes from as in the prayer THY KINGDOM COME.. it came post ressurection…. Keeping it simple is always best. God’s entire will for the world and us is stated in His prayer. .. The Lord’s Prayer. How we as His people join Him in accomplishing His will is the “Prayer of St Francis. Lord’s Prayer Our Father, who art in heaven,hallowed be thy name;thy kingdom come;thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.Give us this day our daily bread;and forgive us our trespassesas we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation,but deliver us from evil.For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory now and for ever. Amen. Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.Where there is hatred, let me sow love;where there is injury,pardon;where there is doubt, faith;where there is despair, hope;where there is darkness, light;and where there is sadness, joy.O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;to be understood as to understand;to be loved as to love.For it is in giving that we receive;it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen
noprem,
very sorry that my post ran together like that, let me know if you would prefer that I send it in portions.
blessings
@mblouin “let me know if you would prefer that I send it in portions”
Wouldn’t matter. I can see your problem is with
understanding plain language. Can’t help you there.
@noprem
You did say….
You couldn’t read Catholic Scripture.
You believe that the bible is a neutral place to start a conversation about God.
Then you pull Rev 3:12 out and ask why Christ mentions “my god” 4 times and other seemingly “I know better or something you don’t know questions’ just to goade me into inflating your ego.
And YOU tell me I have a problem?
To first understand Rev 3:12 you must set the stage with Rev 2:7. The Promise; the reward for faithfulness. We can never forget it.
“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.”
Revelation 2:7
The Church is the temple; Christ is the foundation on which it is built; and his ministers are the Pillars by which, under him, it is adorned and supported. St. Paul says the same in Galatians 2:9.
“And he shall go no more out -”
If we reach heaven, our happiness and welfare of our soul will be secure forever. Our soul will never be in danger of falling into temptation; no one will ever have the power to separate us from God and we will never die. We may change our place, roam until we have seen all the wonders of all the worlds of creation, we will never “go out of the temple of God.” John14:2 “In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.”
It is not uncommon in the New Testament to represent the church as a temple, and Christians as parts of it.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Peter 2:5.
“And I will write upon him the name of my God – ”
The honor of “who should overcome” would be as great as if the name of that God whom he served were inscribed on him in some visible manner. He would be known and recognized as belonging to GOD; the God OF THE Redeemer himself – “the name of my God.” The high priest had written on his forehead kodesh laihovah, “Holiness to the Lord.”
Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.
Revelation 14:1
They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.
Revelation 22:4
“And the name of the city of my God -”
As the high priest had on his breastplate the names of the twelve tribes engraved, and these constituted the city or Church of God; Christ here promises that in place of them the twelve apostles, representing the Christian Church, shall be written, which is called the New Jerusalem, and which God has adopted in place of the twelve Jewish tribes.
And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband
Revelation 21:2
Jerusalem was the place where the temple was reared, and where the worship of God was celebrated. It thus came to be synonymous with the church – the dwelling-place of God on earth.
The circumference of the city shall be 18,000 cubits. And the name of the city from that time on shall be, The Lord Is There.”
Ezekiel 48:35
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering,
Hebrews 12:22
“And I will write upon him my new name -”
The Savior of All; the light that lightens the Gentiles; the Christ; the Anointed One; the only Governor of his Church; and the Redeemer of All mankind.
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it.
Revelation 2:17
In plain terms Revelation 3:12 reminds believers who God is, what God has done for them and what we have faith in for the future. It admonishes us to keep our spiritual ears open continually for the convicting and guiding voice of the Holy Spirit. No one wants to be caught unaware or just talking the talk and not walking the walk, growing weak and lazy toward the worship and practice of Christ’s truth, way and life when He comes again in Glory.
I do hope this was “plain, bible speak and church-y enough language for you.
Keep the faith and carry on.
One of the many complexities in the “sinlessness” of Mary has to do with her physical origin. It has been referred to here from time to time; perhaps y’all could look at what your own research people have to say about her mother “St. Anne”:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01538a.htm
“Anne is the traditional name of the mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary. All our information concerning the names and lives of Sts. Joachim and Anne, the parents of Mary, is derived from apocryphal literature, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Protoevangelium of James …”
And, as history, it goes downhill from there. The words “spurious, legend, story, apocryphal” are used often. The writers (ca. 1900) describe the stories of “Anne and Joachim” and note their similarity to that of Samuel’s mother Hannah. Just as many of us find similarities to the cult of Mary (The late Pope John’s phrase) in ancient ‘virgin goddess’ legends.
“According to Ephiphanius it was maintained even in the fourth century by some enthusiasts that St. Anne conceived without the action of man.” My, my. Does it ever end?
I use the newadvent.org site often for biblical and religious researches; I suggest that some of you begin to do the same. Kevin Knight does a fine job with the site.
@noprem Other than to refer to a comment that claimed Mary was the sinless child of God, my posts have all focused on the scriptural attention to Mary. You’re right about New Advent, it’s a great resource. There are also many points that opposition to the Catholic Church supports in regard to Mary. For example, Martin Luther confirmed Mary’s Immaculate conception (before RCC’s dogma) and perpetual virginity. John Wycliffe also stated, “There is no sex or age, no rank or position, of anyone in the whole human race, which has no need to call for the help of the Holy Virgin.”
I would like also to note that Catholics DO NOT Worship Mary, we ask for her intercession with her Son Jesus Christ. It’s akin to asking our own mother to pray for us.
Looking at the reformation causes great concern when I look at the continued discord that has since derived. I am also aware that other canonized saints of the RCC disagreed on various points throughout history, yet they chose the unity over schism. I could go on, but it seems that we may have to agree to disagree on the matter.
God Bless you and keep you.
dmohrCatholic.
I’m not a Lutheran, so I’m not interested in what he believed. Wycliffe and his kind were persecuted by the RCC for daring to translate the Bible into the common language of the people. That Bible has, as did the Vulgate before it, scriptural proof that ONLY Jesus is Jehovah’s means of salvation. You’ll recall that Jesus himself said ‘Pray this way: Our father …’; ‘no one comes TO the Father except THROUGH me’ and so forth. His beliefs, like yours, were a ‘disagreement’ with God’s word, not mine.
He also prophesied that someone would ‘preach the good news of the kingdom’ and commanded Christians to ‘teach all the things he taught us’; no mention of any tricks involving his mother.** Is anyone doing this today?
You could benefit from a study of the Bible from scratch.
**Who, BTW is now in Heaven, disturbed by the false adulation given her. Like her son, she worshiped only Jehovah: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall not have strange gods before me.” Ex 20:2,3 KJV. ASV, “I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Clarification:Above, I wrote “His beliefs, like yours, were a ‘disagreement’ with God’s word, not mine.” I meant, of course, Wycliffe’s unscriptural belief about ‘calling on the Holy Virgin’.
BTW that belief was a holdover from a movement prophesied by Paul and John, to name two. Their inspired prophecies said that false teachings would come into and corrupt true Christianity. Bible students have been redirecting themselves to the ‘narrow way’ since especially the discovery of better mss et. al in the late 19th century.
Doug
@noprem 1 Tm 4:1-5 KJV
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
When I read this I see in the first part some seduce spirits and doctrines of devils. That single verse all by itself could be used to point out virtually anyone. In verse 3 though, it refers to the same people forbidding marriage and commanding to abstain from meats God desires they receive. I’m quite certain that the RCC doesn’t forbid marriage, quite the contrary, it’s battling to preserve it. The Church does abstain from meat as a form of fasting as Christ refers to in the Gospels (ie Mt 6:16-18).
As I read on to 4 and 5 I get the context more clearly about abstaining from meat in general, similar to a group like PETA. We can see some very interesting connections to the ways of the world from this entire passage. Take for instance that turtle eggs are protected by law, but unborn children are not.
In Christ’s Holy Name
Dennis
@dmohrCatholic @noprem
Looks like your Bible study isn’t going well. Example: At Mt 5-7 Jesus was a Jewish teacher speaking to Jews; fasting was an option to them as a religious function. At 5:17 he says, “Do not think that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” By his death later he did fulfil the Law perfectly, once for all time, not ‘over and over’ as Paul notes. No more Law for Christians, just love and Godly principles. A mandatory fasting (as it used to be) is not for Christians therefore.
“I’m quite certain that the RCC doesn’t forbid marriage”; your parish priest disagrees. Mandatory celibacy for them, only because an organization of men says so.. (Cf. 1 Cor 9:4,5)
And “celibacy” isn’t the right term, is it? That means ‘no sex’, which the news reminds us is not the case with many priests, then or now. So “forbidding to marry”- marriage being a gift from God and never forbidden to the real [Jewish] priesthood- is from men. Fornication with either sex is forbidden by God but often tolerated by the Church. (Fact of history; look it up.)
Who on earth is the “Philip” who is misleading you so?
Doug
@noprem @dmohrCatholic
Totally agree with you on this one. Historically the RCC could never keep the promise that was made to be “celibate”. Even the popes in Rome during the Medici times had wives and children… So, what makes the current pope and/or priests now believe that they are any better at doing the job?
Think on this passage in the bible.. 1 Corinthians 7:27-40 It is quite long, but Paul is essentially saying that to be truly a “holy and dedicated to God” person, one must live without distractions and being married for either sex is a distraction of the flesh.
Verse 32-35 reflects this : “He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.”
Paul says that it’s fine to have a wife or husband, but just live as though you have neither; (v29) weep as though you are not, rejoice as though do not; and buy as though you possessed nothing (v30) and use this world, but don’t abuse it. (v31)
It seems TO ME that the RCC law of celibacy for priests was based upon what Paul had to say to the Corinthians in chapter 7.
FYI “noprem” is a username I adopted long ago to control spam. My name is Doug.