The Immaculate conception of Mary is it biblical?

The Immaculate conception of Mary is it biblical? 

 

What is the Immaculate conception?  

 

The immaculate conception of Mary is a Catholic teaching that Mary, the mother of Jesus was conceived and born, without original sin. This term is often, though incorrectly, applied to the virgin birth of Jesus. 

 

“The Immaculate Conception is a Catholic dogma that states that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain. That’s what “immaculate” means: without stain.”

https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

 

So, we see that the immaculate conception is Catholic Dogma, in relation to Mary the mother of Jesus. She was conceived in the normal way, through a mother and father, but was not stained with original sin. She was free from all sin. In other words Mary was born sinless and remained that way. 

 

Just like other Catholic Dogmas, this means that it must be believed without question. 

 

This teaching has not always been Catholic dogma, in fact, it became Catholic Dogma in 1854. 

 

“In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

Ineffabilis Deus Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception (December 8, 1854)

 

So, just like other Catholic dogmas, it is unquestionable and anyone that dare do so has separated themselves from the church. This is no longer a debatable subject in the Catholic church. 

 

When it comes to the Bible, it is important to note that there is no scripture that states that Mary was born without original sin or that she was indeed sinless and remained that way. 

 

Luke 1:28 is most often cited as evidence by Catholics that Mary was indeed sinless.

Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women

We shall come back to this verse and investigate it and the claims that the Catholics make regarding it in a bit.


When we study the scriptures and what it says about sin we will very clearly see that the Bible actually states that ALL have sinned.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

 

 

All in this verse is used as an adjective, and it defines the quantity. It therefore means all, everyone. Without limit. This therefore, must include Mary. 

 

Non Catholic Christians assert that while all means everyone, it is evident that our Lord Jesus Christ is obviously exempted from the statement. Jesus being the son of God, the Messiah is without sin. 

 

While Catholics would also agree with Jesus being exempted, the usual Catholic counter argument is that if all in this verse must include everyone without exception then this would also include Jesus himself. 

 

But what about “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23) and “if any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him” (1 John 1:8)? Wouldn’t “all” and “any man” include Mary? On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But this way of thinking carried to its logical conclusion would list Jesus Christ in the company of sinners as well. No faithful Christian would dare say that. Yet no Christian can deny the plain texts of Scripture declaring Christ’s full humanity, either. Thus, to take 1 John 1:8 in a strict, literal sense would apply “any man” to Jesus as well.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hail-mary-conceived-without-sin

 

1 John 1:8 reads:

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

 

This seems to satisfy Catholics who believe that this demonstrates their point that it clearly cannot be referring to all, otherwise it would have to include Jesus and as Jesus was not included this is proof that the all was not literally meaning all, and thus Mary, just like Jesus, can also be excluded. 

 

However, all this actually does is make 2 people excluded and exempted from the All, Mary and Jesus, instead of just one, Jesus. It simply moves the exempted parties back one person. 

 

But this does not work based on the Biblical attestation to who is exempted from the all. 

 

The Bible is clear that only Jesus was exempted from the statement. The Bible itself declares Jesus as being without sin and therefore sinless. 

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

 

Hebrews 7:26 For such a high priest indeed was fitting for us, holy, innocent, undefiled, having been separated from sinners, and having become higher than the heavens,

 

1 Peter 2: 21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

 

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 

 

As demonstrated, the Bible very clearly outlines that Jesus was without sin. Jesus did not sin.

 

Jesus himself asked who was able to prove him of having sinned. 

 

John 8: 42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 

 

We get no such biblical attestation regarding Mary. Mary is not stated as being sinless. We have very clear biblical attestation to the sinlessness of Jesus and no such attestation regarding Mary. If Mary was sinless and exempted then we should ask why we do not get such declarations in regards to her? We must also ask if the Bible does not state that Mary was sinless, where exactly do we find this information? 

 

When a certain woman said to Jesus blessed is the womb and breasts of the woman that bare him, rather than agreeing and praising his mother Mary as being blessed, Jesus replied RATHER blessed are those that hear the word of God and keep it. 

 

Luke 11:27  And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

 

It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother’s womb and paps, but designating those as more blessed who hear the word of God.

Tertullian On the Flesh of Christ chapter 7

 

Catholic Encyclopedia states that there is no direct or categorical proof of the dogma in scripture. 

 

“No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: “and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel” (Genesis 3:15). The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.”

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

Here, while we can clearly see that even the Church itself declares that there is no explicit proof from scripture, we must also notice the deception of the Catholic Church. There is clearly a lot of Mariology being read back into this verse, eisegesis,  which is nothing less than circular reasoning. Notice that it states she(he) will crush thy head.

This of course is a reference back to Genesis 3:15. This is a statement made to the serpent.

But the Catholic church has changed this verse to support their own believed doctrine. 

 

The Latin Vulgate reads SHE shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for HER heel. 

 

Genesis 3:15 inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel

This is very different from what the original Hebrew text reads.
וְאֵיבָ֣ה ׀ אָשִׁ֗ית בֵּֽינְךָ֙ וּבֵ֣ין הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וּבֵ֥ין זַרְעֲךָ֖ וּבֵ֣ין זַרְעָ֑הּ ה֚וּא יְשׁוּפְךָ֣ רֹ֔אשׁ וְאַתָּ֖ה תְּשׁוּפֶ֥נּוּ עָקֵֽב׃ ס

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. KJV 

 

“It”, here in the KJV , is a reference to the seed of the woman. The Hebrew is ה֚וּא Hu. It is in the masculine form and refers to he. Obviously the fact that we have and thou shalt bruise HIS  shows that this is in reference to a male offspring.

 

Again, HIS heel is in the masculine form.

Many versions render this both HE and HIS. 

 

The Greek Septuagint also reads masculine here.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, he shall watch against thy head, and thou shalt watch against his heel.
Brentons septuagint.

καὶ ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ μέσον σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικός, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς· αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν, καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν.

 

The Latin vulgate has incorrectly rendered the masculine αὐτός as feminine ipsa

Genesis 3:15 inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius

This actually gives the rather incorrect impression that Mary had a much more active role in the crushing of the serpent than what she actually has, which allows for the teaching regarding Mary and her much elevated role in the Catholic church. While there is no doubt that the role of Mary is vitally important, it is Jesus, not Mary who this verse is in reference to. 

 

Not only did the teaching that Mary was sinless only become Catholic dogma in 1854, but the teaching that Mary was sinless was not taught by the early church fathers and has been rejected, by many throughout history, by way of assertion that Mary indeed did have the stain of sin. 

 

 

Church fathers 

 

Irenaeus 

 

Behold how the righteous is destroyed, and no man layeth it to heart; and righteous men are taken away, and no man understandeth. For from the face of iniquity is the taking away of the righteous: peace shall be his burial, he hath been taken away from the midst. And who else is perfectly righteous, but the Son of God, who makes righteous and perfects them that believe on Him, who like unto Him are persecuted and put to death?
A Discourse in Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 72 

 

Origen 

 

 Thereupon Simeon says, “A sword will pierce your very soul.” 20 which sword is this that pierced not only others’ hearts, but even Mary’s? Scripture clearly records that, at the time of the passion, all the apostles were scandalised. The Lord himself said “ This night you will all be scandalised”.21, thus, they were all so scandalised that Peter too, the leader of the apostles, denied him three times.  Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal when the apostles were scandalised? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord’s passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But, if, “all have sinned and lack God’s glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed”, 22 then Mary too was scandalised at that time.  

Origen homily on luke 17 

 

Hilary of Poitiers
“if this virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape?”
(Tractatus in Ps. 118).

 

Fulgentius of Ruspe 

“conceived in iniquity in accordance with human practice”

 [Epistula 17.13]). 

 

Ambrose (c. 339-97) commenting on Luke 1:35:

For wholly alone of those born of woman was our Holy Lord Jesus, Who by the strangeness of His undefiled Birth has not suffered the pollutions of earthly corruption, but dispelled them by heavenly majesty.

– Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book II, §56, p. 59. (Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 2.56, PL 15:1572D-1573A.)

 

Augustine (354-430 AD):

“It was no cohabitation with a husband which opened the secrets of the Virgin’s womb; rather was it the Holy Ghost which infused immaculate seed into her unviolated womb. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.”

Of the Grace of Christ and of Original Sin book 2 chapter 41

 

Basil of caesarea argued that the sword, that would pierce Marys heart as prophesied by Simeon in Luke 2:35 was the sword of Doubt.

“Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man—to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. “That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” He indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ” (Basil, Letter 260.9).

 

Luke 2: 35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

 

John Chrysostum stated that Mary had wanted to show power and authority over Jesus and referring to her, “superflous vanity”. 

And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, While He yet talked to the people; as if he should say, What? Was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?
(Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.1).

He also stated that Jesus had healed her of the disease of vainglory. 

3. Having then said these words, He came out of the house. Do you see, how He both rebuked them, and did what they desired? Which He did also at the marriage. John 2:1-11 For there too He at once reproved her asking unseasonably, and nevertheless did not gainsay her; by the former correcting her weakness, by the latter showing His kindly feeling toward His mother. So likewise on this occasion too, He both healed the disease of vainglory, and rendered the due honor to His mother, even though her request was unseasonable. For, in the same day, it is said, went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
   (Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3).

Tertullian points to the “faults” of his Mother and brethren. 

He had meant to deny His own nativity, He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently, and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers. When denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favour — even because they listened to the word (of God) — He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept aloof from Him.
Tertullian On the Flesh of Christ chapter 7

 

We even have 7 Popes who clearly stated that it was only Jesus who was sinless and some explicitly stating that Mary had sin. 

 

Leo the 1st (Leo the Great)

when by the condition of birth, there is one cause of perishing for all. And so among the sons of men, the Lord Jesus alone was born innocent, since he alone was conceived without the pollution of carnal concupiscence.

Fifth sermon on the Nativity (Sermon 25), Chapter 5

And to this end, without male seed Christ was conceived of a Virgin, who was fecundated not by human intercourse but by the Holy Spirit. And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one received purification from the Source of her conception.

Second Sermon on the Nativity (Sermon 22), Chapter 3

 

Pope Gelasius I

It belongs alone to the immaculate Lamb to have no sin at all.

Lib. contra Pelagium dicta adv. Pelag

 

Pope Gregory the 1st pope gregory the great 

For we, though we are made holy, yet are: not born holy, because by the mere constitution of a corruptible nature we are tied and bound, that we should say with the Prophet, Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin hath my mother conceived me. But He only is truly born holy, Who in order that He might get the better of that same constitution of a corruptible nature, was not conceived by the combining of carnal conjunction.

Book of the Morals, an exposition of Job, Book 18, on Job 27 (and quoted by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, 3rd part, question 34, article 1, reply to objection 3)

 

 

Pope innocent the 3rd 

But forthwith [upon the Angel’s words, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee’] the Holy Ghost came upon her. He had before come into her, when, in her mother’s womb, He cleansed her soul from original sin; but now too He came upon her to cleanse her flesh from the ‘fomes’ of sin, that she might be altogether without spot or wrinkle. That tyrant then of the flesh, the sickness of nature, the ‘fomes’ of sin, as I think, He altogether extinguished, that henceforth any motion from the law of sin should not be able to arise in her members.

Sermon on the Purification of the Virgin

 

Eve was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin; Mary was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.

Sermon on the Assumption, Sermon 2 (aka Second Discourse on the Assumption)

 

Of John the Angel does not speak of the conception but of the birth. But of Jesus he predicts alike the Birth and the Conception. For to Zechariah the father it is predicted, ‘Thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John,’ but to Mary the mother it is predicted, ‘Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bear a Son, and shalt call His Name Jesus.’ For John was conceived in fault, but Christ Alone was conceived without fault. But each was born in grace, and therefore the Nativity of each is celebrated, but the Conception of Christ Alone is celebrated.

On the Feast of John the Baptist, i (Sermon 16 on Feast Days)

 

Pope innocent the 5th 

 

The nearer any one approaches to the Holy of Holies, so much the greater degree of sanctification ought he to have, for there is no approach to Him, except through sanctification. But the mother approaches more than all to the Son, Who is the Holy of Holies; therefore she ought to have a greater degree of sanctification after her Son. The degree of sanctification may be understood as fourfold: either that one have sanctity (1) before conception and birth; (2) after conception and birth; (3) in the conception itself and birth; (4) in birth, not in conception. For, ‘in conception and not in birth’ is impossible. The first degree is not possible, both because personal perfection (like knowledge or virtue) is not transfused from the parents; and also because in children the being of grace cannot take place, before the actual being of nature, upon which it is founded. The second degree is common to all, according to the common law of sanctification through sacraments. The third is peculiar to the Holy of Holies, in Whom Alone all sanctification took place at once, conception, sanctification, assumption. There remains then the fourth. But this has four degrees; because the foetus, when conceived in the womb, may be understood to be sanctified either before animation, or in the animation, or soon after the animation, or long after the animation. The first degree is impossible, because according to Dionysius (de div. nom. c. 12) ‘Holiness is cleanness free from all defilement, and perfect and immaculate;’ but the uncleanness of fault is not expelled except through ‘grace making gracious’ [acceptable], as darkness by light, of which grace the reasonable creature only is the subject. The second degree was not suitable to the Virgin, because either she would not have contracted original sin, and so would not have needed the universal sanctification and redemption of Christ, or if she had contracted it, grace and fault could not have been in her at once. The fourth degree also was not suitable to the Virgin, because it did suit John and Jeremiah, and because it did not suit so great holiness that she should have lingered long in sin, as others; but John was sanctified in the sixth month (Luke i.). But the third seems suitable and piously credible, although it be not derived from Scripture, that she should have been sanctified, soon after her animation, either on the very day or hour, although not at the same moment.

 

 

 

 John XXII (or Benedict XII)

 

She (the Virgin) passed, first, from a state of original sin, second, from a state of childhood to maternal honor, third, from misery to glory.

Sermon 1 on the Assumption

 

Pope clement the 6th 

 

But before I divide the theme, it seems that that Conception ought not to be celebrated, first, on the authority of Bernard, who, in his Epistle to the Lyonnese [canons], gravely reprehends them, because they had received the feast and held it solemnly. Because no feast ought to be celebrated, except for reverence of the sanctity of the person as to whom it is celebrated, since such honor is shown to saints on account of the [relation] which they have to God above others; but this is on account of holiness; and not actual sin only, but original sin also [separates] from God. But the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, as many saints seem to say, and may be proved by many grounds. It seems that the Church ought not to hold a festival of her Conception. Here, being unwilling to dispute, I say briefly that one thing is clear, that the Blessed Virgin contracted original sin in the cause. The cause and reason is this, that, as being conceived from the coming together of man and woman, she was conceived through passion, and therefore she had original sin in the cause, which her Son had not, because He was not conceived of seed of man, but through the mystic breathing (Luke i.), ‘The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee.’ And therefore not to have original sin is a singular privilege of Christ Alone. But whether she had ‘in form’ original sin, or was by Divine virtue preserved, there are different opinions among Doctors. But however it was, I say, that if, in form and not in cause only, she had original sin, we may still very reasonably keep festival of her Conception, supposing that, according to all most opposed, it was but a little hour that she was in original sin, because according to all she was sanctified as soon as she could be sanctified.

 

Sermon One of the Lord’s Advent (aka “Sigua erunt in sole.”)

 

Interestingly, and I would also say importantly,  none of the early church fathers appeal to Luke 1:28 in order to argue that Mary was indeed conceived without original sin. It should be noted that we do not have many usages of this verse at all by the early church fathers.

 

Augustine actually states that she was full of grace and that she had found race with God, not because she was spared from original sin but because she was to be the mother of her Lord, who is Jesus.

And so the angel, when he announced to Christ’s mother the coming birth, saluted her thus: “Hail, thou that art full of grace;” and shortly afterwards, “Thou hast found grace with God.”Now she was said to be full of grace, and to have found grace with God, because she was to be the mother of her Lord, nay, of the Lord of all flesh
Augustine On the Holy Trinity; Doctrinal Treatises; Moral Treatises

 

Theodoret simply argues that the title is bestowed upon her because of him, Jesus, who was born of her. He makes no argument that this has anything to do with being spared from original sin. 

 

Wherefore also we call the holy Virgin both Mother of God and Mother of man, since the Lord Christ Himself is called God and man in the divine Scripture. The name Emmanuel proclaims the union of the two natures. If we acknowledge the Christ to be both God and Man and so call Him, who is so insensate as to shrink from using the term “Mother of man” with that of “Mother of God”? For we use both terms of the Lord Christ. For this reason the Virgin is honoured and called “full of grace. What sensible man then would object to name the Virgin in accordance with the titles of the Saviour, when on His account she is honoured by the faithful? For He who was born of her is not worshipped on her account, but she is honoured with the highest titles on account of Him Who was born from her.

Theodoret letter of Theodoret to the monks of the Euphratensian 

 

The Catholic Church claims that it was of necessity that Mary was born sinless. 

 

 

Ccc

 

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.”132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The “splendour of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.137

 

Furthermore, it is argued that the necessity of Mary’s sinlessness was in order to spare Jesus from inheriting original sin.

 

“Why must Mary be sinless? Because God’s initiative, God’s entrance into humanity for the purpose of its sanctification, its divinization, must, in at least one instance, have been utterly, completely full and successful. The human heart of Jesus offered a flawless “yes” to the Father, but the human heart of Jesus is God’s initiative. It is the Incarnation finding expression within the Trinity. When the created heart of Mary offered her flawless “yes,” humanity itself, in one instance, gave itself, utterly and completely, to God. Greater than all the saints, this is salvation wholly satisfied. Gabriel was not engaging in hyperbole when he called her “full of grace” (Lk 1:28).

He could have been born to a woman affected by original sin, just as he was born to grandparents touched by it. But having found unutterable delight and design in the salvation wrought in Christ, the church insists that its very purpose must have been ineffably and wondrously realized in one disciple whose complete “yes” leads to her complete “divinization.” Christ is creator. Mary remains creature. In Christ, the offer of salvation is flawless. In Mary, so is the reception.

 

The Rev. Terrance W. Klein
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/12/07/immaculate-conception-why-must-mary-be-sinless

 

In an online debate between Tony Costa and Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis, Mr Sungenis argues that Mary had to be spared from original sin in order that Christ could be sinless. 

 

Why would God decide to give Mary grace at the exact moment she was conceived sparing her from original sin?

 

The reason is very simple and very important. If Mary hadn’t received this special grace of God we would have no saviour and thus we would all be damned with no hope of salvation. That is why the doctrine of the immaculate conception is so important.
Let me say that again in case you didn’t hear it or didn’t understand it the first time. If Mary hadn’t received this special grace of God we would have no saviour and thus we would all be damned with no hope of salvation.

 

The reason is that the curse of sin as demonstrated in what we call original sin is inherited by the whole human race. Our first parents Adam and Eve contracted it when they sinned and it was passed down to each generation thereafter as if it were a congenital disease. Simply put if the mother has original sin then her child will have it. We are stuck with it because we are Adam and Eves children. So if Mary had contracted original sin from her mother who we know is saint Anne then being the source of Jesus’ human Nature Mary would have passed on her original sin to Jesus. If Jesus contracted original sin, he could not offer himself as a sacrifice to God and be our saviour since in order to be a perfect sacrifice the saviour must be a spotless lamb without blemish, a man without sin, either original or actual. As we can readily see Mary’s immaculate conception is absolutely essential in order to procure our salvation without it we would have no saviour. A sinful Mary would have produced a sinful Christ in his human nature, since Mary was the source for Jesus’ human nature she had to be free of sin in order that she would not transmit it to Christ. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNGYvvU-KvU
20.14 mins- 22.45

 

There are, however, some fundamental flaws in this reasoning.

If the mother will pass on original sin to her child then why would Mary’s mother not pass on her original sin to Mary? Would this not require Mary’s mother to have been spared original sin? What about Mary’s grandmother’s mother? Surely if the mother will, without fail, pass on original sin to her child then she would have needed to have been spared from original sin in order to not pass this on. If we apply this logical argument to its conclusion then we would require an original mother who had no sin and this sinless line to have remained sinless to pass down through all generations unto Mary and then Jesus.  Of course this is not what Mr Sugensis is arguing at all. He is arguing that God stepped in and gave Mary grace at her conception sparing her from contracting original sin from her mother who had original sin. But this is simply an unnecessary added step. If God can step in to save a child from contracting original sin from the mother, as apparently he did with Mary,  then there is simply no need for Mary to have been sinless in order for Jesus to have been sinless. God could have stepped in and saved Jesus from contracting this original sin from his mother in the exact same way that Mr Sugensis is arguing that Mary was spared from contracting original sin from her mother who had original sin. Thus, the argument regarding Mary needing to be sinless is disproven by the argument itself.

Furthermore, this added and unnecessary step is not supported by scripture and is completely unbiblical.

The Catholic teaching that it was necessary for Mary to be spared original sin in order to not pass this original sin to Jesus in reality has Mary as having saved Jesus from sin.

 

Jesus is declared Holy and the son of God, not because Mary was sinless but because of the unique way in which he was conceived, through the holy spirit. 

 

Luke 1: 26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

 

We clearly have biblical attestation to everyone being a sinner. We get clear and explicit texts that Jesus was not included in the all and that Jesus was sinless. 

 

We explicitly get the intervention in the birth of Jesus, through the virgin birth.

 

Now let’s return and look at Luke 1:28.  

 

Luke 1:  28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

 

 

The greeting of the angel to Mary is a major part of the Catholic teaching on the sinlessness of Mary. 

 

The Vulgate in Luke 1:28 rather than reading highly favoured reads “full of Grace”. 

 

Luke 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

 

Which is where the Hail Mary Prayer comes from

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. Behold the handmaid of the Lord: Be it done unto me according to Thy word.
Hail Mary Prayer. 

 

The Greek word translated as highly favoured here is κεχαριτωμένη, kecharitōmenē

 

The Latin vulgate renders this word as gratia plena, full of Grace

 

Luke 1:28 et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

Kecharitōmenē comes from the root word χαριτόω charitoó, which means to to make graceful, endow with grace I favor, bestow freely on.  Grace is freely given. 

 

kecharitōmen is in the perfect passive participle form, which indicates a past action that continues on into the future,  and so it is asserted by the Catholic Church that this salutation, which they claim is a title bestowed upon her, is a reference to Mary having been graced by God in the past and this action of being graced is continuous. This is used to prove that Mary was free of original sin, as Mary was graced in the past, it is understood that she was graced at conception and so was thus free from original sin.  

 

Of course even if it was the grace bestowed upon her that was in the past this would not demand that it was at the conception of Mary that this took place. This is just the assertion. 

Charitoó is also used in Ephesians 1:6 

 

Ephesians 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

 

in laudem gloriae gratiae suae in qua gratificavit nos in dilecto

 

Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us, in his beloved son.

 

Here, however, it is used in the Aorist indicative active form ἐχαρίτωσεν echaritōsen

 

A perfect passive participle is used in Matthew 25:34 

 

Matthew 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

 

Blessed, the Greek word, εὐλογέω eulogeó,  is in the same form as used in Luke 1:28. 

Should we understand that those blessed of the father, are blessed at  conception? 

 

The perfect passive participle is also used in 1 Thessalonians

 

1 Thessalonians 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

 

Neither of these usages of the perfect passive participle indicate that it was at conception this being beloved had been applied to the believer.

It simply means that God has already beloved and blessed those that would be in Christ. It is Gods beloving and the blessing of  those in Christ that is in the past. The being beloved and blessed of God as believers in Christ has always been but until we are ourselves believers in Christ this being beloved of the father is not yet applied directly to us. 

 

We also see the perfect passive participle used of Jesus himself, when we are told that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

 

Slain, is the Greek word σφάζω sphazó, to slay. ( ἐσφαγμένου esphagmenou) 

 

The slaying of Jesus was already determined in the past, but it does not get applied unto Jesus in actuality, until he is actually slain upon the cross.  

In the same way the grace that Mary receives has always been, Gods grace has always abounded,  but the grace that is hers is not applied unto her until the angel comes to her.

Which is why the angel says to her that she has FOUND favour with God.

Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 

 

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membership here