The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary

C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

Around this time of the year (December), in telling the story of the birth of Christ, this topic concerning Mary come to the fore. One wonders what is the truth behind this concept?

  1. What is "Immaculate Conception"
  2. Is the "Immaculate Conception" biblical?
  3. Was the Virgin Mary Immaculately conceived?
  4. By whom, where, and when was this doctrine conceived?
  5. Does this doctrine have any bearing on other teachings of the Bible?
  6. Does the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception" makes Mary a god or a "co-redeemer"?
  7. Does Mary give Jesus Godlike characteristics (immortal, etc.) or He possesses them on his own?

Please, dig deep. Any facts or a clear understanding of this "dogma"? CM

Tagged:

Comments

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @C_M_ said:
    Around this time of the year (December), in telling the story of the birth of Christ, this topic concerning Mary come to the fore. One wonders what is the truth behind this concept?

    1. What is "Immaculate Conception"

    The idea that Mary did not have original sin.

    1. Is the "Immaculate Conception" biblical?

    No

    1. Was the Virgin Mary Immaculately conceived?

    Huh?

    1. By whom, where, and when was this doctrine conceived?

    Catholic Church. It became official Catholic dogma in 1854

    1. Does this doctrine have any bearing on other teachings of the Bible?

    Yes, all have sinned.

    1. Does the dogma of the "Immaculate Conception" makes Mary a god or a "co-redeemer"?

    Essentially

    1. Does Mary give Jesus Godlike characteristics (immortal, etc.) or He possesses them on his own?

    Jesus doesn't have godlike characteristics. He IS God.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710
    edited December 2018

    @reformed said:

    @C_M_ said:
    Around this time of the year (December), in telling the story of the birth of Christ, this topic concerning Mary come to the fore. One wonders what is the truth behind this concept?

    1. What is "Immaculate Conception"

    The idea that Mary did not have original sin.

    In 1859, an English version of a book by Monsignor Romualdo Gentilucci was published in New York City, entitled The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, of Her Blessed Spouse, St. Joseph, and Holy Parents St. Joachim and St. Anne. Added to it were remarks that briefly tell how two hundred high dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church were present on the day when the pontiff issued the Bull Ineffabilis Deus, which proclaimed that Jesus’ mother had been totally sinless. “The prelates with the clergy and faithful heard with deep emotion the decree that now declared as of faith, that Mary could justly be styled ‘Conceived without sin,’ and as the letter, borne on the wings of the press, reached each corner of the globe, all read with reverence and love and thanksgiving the solemn decision of the vicar of the Son of God” (James B. Kirker, trans. The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, of her Blessed Spouse, St. Joseph, and Holy Parents St. Joachim and St. Anne by Romualdo Gentilucci (New York: Edward Dunigan and Brothers, 1859), pp. 533, 534).

    1. Is the "Immaculate Conception" biblical?

    No

    1. Was the Virgin Mary Immaculately conceived?

    @reformed said: Huh?

    According to this dogma, the mother of Jesus was conceived and born with a sinless nature, untainted by original sin resulting from Adam’s disobedience and fall.

    • … On the 21st day of February 1848, when the courtiers of King Louis Philippe (1773–1850) of France, were gathered around him, he said: “I was never more firmly seated on the throne of empire than I am tonight.” In the twilight of the next evening, wearing a “pea jacket,” disguised as a hackney coachman, he fled outside the walls of the city of Paris seeking a refuge for his personal safety. The cause of this great and sudden change is said to have been the result of some movement on his part favoring the papal usurpation, which offended his subjects and his soldiers. He had on that day completed, in the city of Paris, a grand military review of the French army; and when their arms were stacked, he retired to the palace, when suddenly a small boy jumped upon a cannon, waving a tri-colored flag, crying, “DOWN WITH THE POPE! DOWN WITH THE POPE!” The soldiers taking up the cry, it passed swiftly up and down the lines, gaining strength as it went until connected with it was the cry, “AND DOWN WITH THE KING!” In a few hours, all Paris was a scene of wild confusion. The soldiers, with guns in hand, accompanied by a mob, were rushing for the king’s palace. He, on being informed of the turmoil, hastened to escape under disguise (John Norton Loughborough, The Great Second Advent Movement: Its Rise and Progress (N.p., 1905: Pacific Press, 1992. Photographic repr.), p. 271).

    A few months later, on 24-25 November 1848, assisted by the French and Bavarian ambassadors, Pius IX also fled from the Papal States to Gaeta in the kingdom of Naples. He returned to Rome on 12 April 1850 (EB 07, s.v. “Pius IX.”).

    But while in Gaeta, he had pondered the advisability of proclaiming the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception, to which we have already referred. On various occasions, over centuries, Catholic theologians had debated this point, and it was raised again in the time of the previous pontiff, Gregory XVI. Pius thought the time was now ripe for making a final decision. Therefore, on 2 February 1849, he issued an encyclical, Ubi Primum (On the Immaculate Conception), “To Our Venerable Brothers, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Entire Catholic World,” for their reactions. -- “Pope Pius IX, 2 February 1849, The Immaculate Conception,” Eternal Word Television Network (5817 Old Leeds Road, Irondale, AL 35210), www.ewtn.com, downloaded 03/11/07.

    1. By whom, where, and when was this doctrine conceived?

    @reformed said: Catholic Church. It became official Catholic dogma in 1854

    Yes, you're right. Pius IX (1792-1878, reigned from 1846), controlled his church for thirty-two years, which up to that time was the longest pontificate in history. It was also one of the most eventful. On 8 December 1854, Pope Pius formally announced the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. He startled the world by promulgating a brand-new Catholic doctrine, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary (1854).

    What a deviation from the Bible! The Reformation must continue! There is so much opposition to Jesus where the Bible supports. Yet, this Catholic dogma has no such biblical support. CM

    Post edited by C_M_ on
  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,416

    @C_M_ said:

    1. Was the Virgin Mary Immaculately conceived?

    According to this dogma, the mother of Jesus was conceived and born with a sinless nature, untainted by original sin resulting from Adam’s disobedience and fall.

    The underlying problem of the whole matter with this "immaculate conception" is the false doctrine about "original sin /sin nature" inherited from or passed on by Adam.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    @Wolfgang said:

    @C_M_ said:

    1. Was the Virgin Mary Immaculately conceived?

    According to this dogma, the mother of Jesus was conceived and born with a sinless nature, untainted by original sin resulting from Adam’s disobedience and fall.

    The underlying problem of the whole matter with this "immaculate conception" is the false doctrine about "original sin /sin nature" inherited from or passed on by Adam.

    This is the subject of a new thread. Until I get there what is your understanding of the "false doctrine about 'original sin/sin nature'? CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,416

    @C_M_ said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    The underlying problem of the whole matter with this "immaculate conception" is the false doctrine about "original sin /sin nature" inherited from or passed on by Adam.

    This is the subject of a new thread. Until I get there what is your understanding of the "false doctrine about 'original sin/sin nature'? CM

    The Bible does not teach anything about passed on "original sin", "inherited sin", "sin nature", etc .... rather, man decides by his own choice to either obey God or disobey God and sin.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @Wolfgang said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    The underlying problem of the whole matter with this "immaculate conception" is the false doctrine about "original sin /sin nature" inherited from or passed on by Adam.

    This is the subject of a new thread. Until I get there what is your understanding of the "false doctrine about 'original sin/sin nature'? CM

    The Bible does not teach anything about passed on "original sin", "inherited sin", "sin nature", etc .... rather, man decides by his own choice to either obey God or disobey God and sin.

    That is patently false.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,416
    edited December 2018

    @reformed said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    The Bible does not teach anything about passed on "original sin", "inherited sin", "sin nature", etc .... rather, man decides by his own choice to either obey God or disobey God and sin.

    That is patently false.

    Really? Cp. Rom 5:12

    Rom 5:12 (AV)
    Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    Does your Bible perhaps read:
    "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men because all inherit that one man's sin."

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    Wolfgang,
    May I suggest you read or re-read my OP in the thread of "Sin in the Bible: A definition" (Page 1) in prep to discuss "original sin".

    As for Rom. 5.12 --

    • "one man" = Adam.
    • "because all sinned":

      • (1) The sin that entered the world through Adam caused death (Gen. 3:1–6).
      • (2) everyone must have sinned because everyone dies.

    It is because of this condition of human nature, traceable to Adam’s sin, that human beings must be born again (Rom. 3:23; 5:1).

    In Gen. 3:1–6 on sin, these verses speak to the origin of sin on earth:

    • Gen. 3. 8–14, 16–19, its results.
    • Gen. 3:15, its remedy.

    You know that sin, itself, goes back to a rebellion in heaven.

    • The origin of SIN in heaven, see Is. 14:12–14; Ezek. 28:15–17; Rev. 12:7–9.
    • For the nature of SIN, see 1 John 3:4.
    • On the universal results of SIN on human nature, see Gen. 8:21; Ps. 51:5; Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21; Rom. 3:23; 5:10; 6:16, 23; Eph. 2:3; James 4:1–2; 1 Pet. 5:8.

    Read on. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @Wolfgang said:

    @reformed said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    The Bible does not teach anything about passed on "original sin", "inherited sin", "sin nature", etc .... rather, man decides by his own choice to either obey God or disobey God and sin.

    That is patently false.

    Really? Cp. Rom 5:12

    Rom 5:12 (AV)
    Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    Does your Bible perhaps read:
    "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men because all inherit that one man's sin."

    You seem incapable of understanding anything in Orthodox Christianity.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,416

    @reformed said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    Rom 5:12 (AV)
    Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    Does your Bible perhaps read:
    "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men because all inherit that one man's sin."

    You seem incapable of understanding anything in Orthodox Christianity.

    And again, you evade to answer the simple question asked of you how the Bible you use reads in Rom 5:12 ...and instead make a judgmental claim about me.
    You know what? I perhaps understand more about orthodox Christianity than you think or maybe even than you understand about it ...

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    Brethren,
    Let's remain focused on the text and topic immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Re-read the OP. Thanks. CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,416

    @C_M_ said:
    Let's remain focused on the text and topic immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Re-read the OP. Thanks. CM

    The matter of an immaculate conception of Mary is irrelevant to her being the mother of the Messiah Jesus.

    This theological idea was only introduced into the picture after the Trinitarian dogma
    was established and which theological view of Jesus necessitated that his mother be also "without sin" ... at least when she was conceived, so that the supposed "inherited sin from Adam down" had no effect on her and subsequently on the child she conceived. Only with such "sin-free credentials" could she qualify as "the mother of God" ...

    In this we can see how one erroneous doctrine leads to the next.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,416

    Here's an interesting thought regarding the timing of this Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary => It could well be that around this time in what we in our calendars call early December was actually the time of year of the visit of the angel Gabriel with Mary and the announcement of her pregnancy with Jesus, seeing that the time of early September (month of Tishri in the Hebrew calendar) could have been the time for the birth of Christ.
    There have been several studies done in connection with the so-called "star of Bethlehem" and also timing of priestly orders and their respective times of duty at the temple in connection with the mention of John the baptist's birth, etc which point to a day in early September for the day when Christ was born at Bethlehem.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @Wolfgang said:

    @C_M_ said:
    Let's remain focused on the text and topic immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Re-read the OP. Thanks. CM

    The matter of an immaculate conception of Mary is irrelevant to her being the mother of the Messiah Jesus.

    This theological idea was only introduced into the picture after the Trinitarian dogma
    was established and which theological view of Jesus necessitated that his mother be also "without sin" ... at least when she was conceived, so that the supposed "inherited sin from Adam down" had no effect on her and subsequently on the child she conceived. Only with such "sin-free credentials" could she qualify as "the mother of God" ...

    In this we can see how one erroneous doctrine leads to the next.

    This is stupidly absurd. The immaculate conception was not doctrine until the 1800's.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,416
    edited December 2018

    @reformed said:

    This is stupidly absurd. The immaculate conception was not doctrine until the 1800's.

    Hmn .... a short note on the timing from Wikipedia
    "... Although the belief that Mary was sinless, or conceived without original sin, has been widely held since Late Antiquity, the doctrine was not dogmatically defined in the Catholic Church until 1854 when Pope Pius IX, declared ex cathedra, i.e., using papal infallibility, in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus,[2] the Immaculate Conception to be doctrine."
    And I would say that my statement was certainly not "stupidly absurd", as you claim. Or is, in your view, "the 1800's" not after the establishment of the Trinity doctrine ??

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710

    Reformed,
    A simple read of my post above, Dec 10, 2018, is a shorter trip to the historical read of "The Immaculate Conception". Have you not read it?

    It's not a matter of timing of the two teachings, but the content and substance. CM

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @Wolfgang said:

    @reformed said:

    This is stupidly absurd. The immaculate conception was not doctrine until the 1800's.

    Hmn .... a short note on the timing from Wikipedia
    "... Although the belief that Mary was sinless, or conceived without original sin, has been widely held since Late Antiquity, the doctrine was not dogmatically defined in the Catholic Church until 1854 when Pope Pius IX, declared ex cathedra, i.e., using papal infallibility, in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus,[2] the Immaculate Conception to be doctrine."
    And I would say that my statement was certainly not "stupidly absurd", as you claim. Or is, in your view, "the 1800's" not after the establishment of the Trinity doctrine ??

    You tried to make it sound as if it was a direct result of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. It is not.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,416
    edited December 2018

    @reformed said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    And I would say that my statement was certainly not "stupidly absurd", as you claim. Or is, in your view, "the 1800's" not after the establishment of the Trinity doctrine ??

    You tried to make it sound as if it was a direct result of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. It is not.

    Of course it is .... without the trinity doctrine there would NOT be an immaculate conception doctrine !! Whether the two were defined centuries apart, does not really matter. And, as the quote from the Wikipedia article shows there were thoughts about an immaculate conception long before a pope declared this as an official RCC doctrine.

    Post edited by Wolfgang on
  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @Wolfgang said:

    @reformed said:

    @Wolfgang said:
    And I would say that my statement was certainly not "stupidly absurd", as you claim. Or is, in your view, "the 1800's" not after the establishment of the Trinity doctrine ??

    You tried to make it sound as if it was a direct result of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. It is not.

    Of course it is .... without the trinity doctrine there would NOT be an immaculate conception doctrine !! Whether the two were defined centuries apart, does not really matter. And, as the quote from the Wikipedia article shows there were thoughts about an immaculate conception long before a pope declared this as an official RCC doctrine.

    No, you simply do not have to connect the doctrine of the Trinity with immaculate conception. The only reason you are is to try and prove the Trinity to be false but you are looking like you don't know what you are talking about (because you don't).

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,416

    @reformed said:
    No, you simply do not have to connect the doctrine of the Trinity with immaculate conception. The only reason you are is to try and prove the Trinity to be false but you are looking like you don't know what you are talking about (because you don't).

    Typical @reformed reply => has no argument or point about the matter, so he accuses the person. I think, this is not quite in line with the guidelines for the forum ??

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @Wolfgang said:

    @reformed said:
    No, you simply do not have to connect the doctrine of the Trinity with immaculate conception. The only reason you are is to try and prove the Trinity to be false but you are looking like you don't know what you are talking about (because you don't).

    Typical @reformed reply => has no argument or point about the matter, so he accuses the person. I think, this is not quite in line with the guidelines for the forum ??

    You have yet to show how the Trinity Doctrine leads to Immaculate Conception.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,416

    @reformed said:
    You have yet to show how the Trinity Doctrine leads to Immaculate Conception.

    hmn ... let's see ... a priest once "explained" it this way: "A perfect God would not incarnate in an imperfect sin-tainted woman ... "

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @Wolfgang said:

    @reformed said:
    You have yet to show how the Trinity Doctrine leads to Immaculate Conception.

    hmn ... let's see ... a priest once "explained" it this way: "A perfect God would not incarnate in an imperfect sin-tainted woman ... "

    Wow, one uncited random priest. Sheesh. Not to mention his logic is flawed anyway.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,416

    @reformed said:

    @Wolfgang said:

    @reformed said:
    You have yet to show how the Trinity Doctrine leads to Immaculate Conception.

    hmn ... let's see ... a priest once "explained" it this way: "A perfect God would not incarnate in an imperfect sin-tainted woman ... "

    Wow, one uncited random priest. Sheesh. Not to mention his logic is flawed anyway.

    How is his logic flawed? His idea of Jesus = God incarnate is flawed? (I think so, but a Trinitarian like you certainly would not consider that to be flawed, or?

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @Wolfgang said:

    @reformed said:

    @Wolfgang said:

    @reformed said:
    You have yet to show how the Trinity Doctrine leads to Immaculate Conception.

    hmn ... let's see ... a priest once "explained" it this way: "A perfect God would not incarnate in an imperfect sin-tainted woman ... "

    Wow, one uncited random priest. Sheesh. Not to mention his logic is flawed anyway.

    How is his logic flawed? His idea of Jesus = God incarnate is flawed? (I think so, but a Trinitarian like you certainly would not consider that to be flawed, or?

    The absolute statement that God would not come in flesh to an imperfect human. There is no basis for that statement.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,416

    @reformed said:

    How is his logic flawed? His idea of Jesus = God incarnate is flawed? (I think so, but a Trinitarian like you certainly would not consider that to be flawed, or?

    The absolute statement that God would not come in flesh to an imperfect human. There is no basis for that statement.

    Maybe not for you ... but certainly for those who are promoting an immaculate conception of Mary and at the time a Trinitarian view of an incarnation of God. Same reasoning goes for promoting the false idea of Mary remaining a virgin throughout her life (thereby alluding to some sense of innocence to be competitive with the sinlessness of her son.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 2,075

    @Wolfgang said:

    @reformed said:

    How is his logic flawed? His idea of Jesus = God incarnate is flawed? (I think so, but a Trinitarian like you certainly would not consider that to be flawed, or?

    The absolute statement that God would not come in flesh to an imperfect human. There is no basis for that statement.

    Maybe not for you ... but certainly for those who are promoting an immaculate conception of Mary and at the time a Trinitarian view of an incarnation of God. Same reasoning goes for promoting the false idea of Mary remaining a virgin throughout her life (thereby alluding to some sense of innocence to be competitive with the sinlessness of her son.

    What I am saying is that the view is not dependant on the Trinity.

  • Personally perplexed by circular quandary: if mother of Jesus needed a Holy body to carry Holy Jesus in her womb, how could mother of Jesus be Holy in her mother's unholy womb ? (to keep a Holy baby from touching unholy flesh of mother while inside)

    Ministry of Jesus included His touching/healing many unholy people while remaining Holy (without sin).

    Thankful for four Righteous people in birth of Jesus Christ story: Zachariah, Elizabeth, Joseph, and Mary. Mary's response to angelic message is awesome :)

    Keep Smiling :)

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,710
    edited January 4

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
    Personally perplexed by circular quandary: if mother of Jesus needed a Holy body to carry Holy Jesus in her womb, how could mother of Jesus be Holy in her mother's unholy womb ? (to keep a Holy baby from touching unholy flesh of mother while inside)

    Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus,
    Could it be that Mary was a "Holy" incubator? In another thread, one may need to explore the topic of "Original Sin". A working definition would be the first business at hand. Considering the task? CM

    Post edited by C_M_ on
Sign In or Register to comment.