The Immaculate Conception
Argument: In view of the Scriptural verses, "All have sinned." [Romans 3:23]
and "[M]y spirit has rejoiced in God my savior." [Luke 1:47], Mary could not have been conceived without original
sin, i.e., our Adamic nature, since Luke 1:47 admits that she too was in need of salvation and therefore must have had sin
on her soul. Therefore the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a false invention of the Catholic Church, patched in by Pope
Pius IX in 1854.
Luke 1:28 says, "And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, full of grace,
the Lord is with you." John 1:14 says, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.
. . . Acts 6:8 says, "And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people."
In view of this use of the phrase "full of grace" especially in reference to St. Stephen, a Catholic cannot use
Luke 28:1 as a proof text for Mary’s Immaculate Conception; certainly, Stephen was not immaculately conceived. We must
go back to the original Greek texts for this phrase, "full of grace." In Luke 28:1 the transliterated Greek is "kecharitomene";
in John 1:14 is it is "pleres charitos"; and in Acts 6:8 it is also "pleres charitos. Regarding
Acts 6:8, there are nearly as many Greek texts which use "pleres pisteios" ("full of faith")
instead of pleres charitos. Which of these was actually written by St. Luke is really beside the point. Certainly
Christ was full of grace, Mary was full of grace, any baptized baby is full of grace. And, if a Protestant claims to have
been saved because she or he has accepted Jesus as savior, then she or he must be full of grace. The Fundamentalist claims
that the only verse in the entire Bible which uses "pleres charitos" is John 1:28 in reference
to Christ. I will concede this to the Fundamentalists because it makes no difference in reference to the Immaculate Conception
of Mary and in view of the logic of the commonality of being "full of grace."
In view of this, the word "kecharitomene" is brought into clearer focus. Luke 1:29 is the
only place in Scripture where this verb form is used (past perfect of "charitoo," "to give grace").
And also what makes this address of Gabriel to Mary unique is that it is used by Gabriel as a title, not an adjectival description.
Gabriel says, "Hail, full of grace" not "Hail, Mary, full of grace.’ He addressed her by the title, "Full
of Grace." Inferior translations use the word "favor" instead of "grace," such as, "Most favored
one." It is difficult to understand how this latter translation is used due to the fact that the word "kecharitomene"
comes from the root word "charitoo" meaning "grace" not "favor" unless one makes "grace"
and "favor" synonymous.
Language can never adequately translate another
language with the same feeling, emphasis, rhyme, idiom, etc. Due to these and other factors inherent in language, doing a
word-for-word translation is not really that meaningful. This would only be a valid kind of exercise if there were two languages
that corresponded so close in structure that the only difference in the two was their vocabulary. Then there would also be
the requirement that each word in one language had one and only one word that exactly corresponded to it in the other language.
There are no two languages that correspond to each other in grammar, rules of syntax, semantic structure, etc., especially
not modern English and Koine (Biblical) Greek. [www.ntgreek.org]
Greek dictionaries indicate the word "grace" for "charitoo." Greek dictionaries use no
form of this word for "grace" when translating the word "favor." The word "kecharitomene"
is the past perfect tense of the verb meaning "to give grace," or "to fill with grace," Because it is
in the past perfect tense, it means that Mary was already filled with grace before the Annunciation, the implication being
that she was the immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant is the place of God. In the Old Testament God
took great pains to make sure that the Ark was immaculate. Exodus goes into meticulous detail, not once, but twice, in describing
what must be done to make the Ark a perfect and pure place for God. If He went to so much trouble to make sure His place is
pure, then it surely makes sense that the place of His physical being should also be pure and perfect, i.e., the womb of Mary,
the Ark of the New Covenant. The argument that Mary was not the Mother of God and that therefore God was not in her womb will
be dealt with later.
Belief in the Immaculate Conception is part of the Tradition
of the Church; it is not supported ostensibly in Scripture. The defense of the Immaculate Conception must, therefore, be supported
by a defense of Sacred Tradition versus Scripture alone, i.e., sola Scriptura. This defense will be found in another
Refutation in this web site. Therefore, the defense of the Immaculate Conception will be given here with this in mind. The
defense of the Immaculate Conception must also include a defense of Mary’s sinlessness throughout her life.
The Fundamentalist argument that these teachings are false are based primarily upon the lack of any
Scriptural support and the following verses: "As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one." [Romans 3:10]
and, as mentioned in the above argument, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." [Romans 3:23].
If this "All" were to be taken literally, then even newborn babies and young children have sinned; even the insane
and the senile have sin. This verse, like so many in Scripture, cannot, logically be taken that literally. This is just one
more example of the lapse of logical thinking in anti-Catholic arguments.
The
Fundamentalists argue that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a later "invention" of the Catholic Church
because it was not formally defined until 1854 and that there is flimsy evidence for its belief before then. The Fundamentalists
also like to point out that St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. Of course there is much more
to Aquinas’s writings about Mary than this. And the dissent of one does not negate the truth. The Fundamentalist might
also want to add St. Bonaventure as one of the dissenters. But these are in the minority and these did not write or speak
ex cathedra from the chair of Peter. In fact there is evidence of the belief in the Immaculate Conception
among some of the early Fathers of the Church. Justin Martyr (100-165), for example, gives us the earliest extant example
of Marian writings. Here he presents the parallel between Eve and Mary, the New Eve:
"He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive
its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived
the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel
Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would
overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according
to thy word.' And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both
the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness
and believe upon Him." [Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155)]
Here is a sampling of the numerous views of the Immaculate Conception long before 1854:
"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was
exempt from putridity and corruption." Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235). The
Tabernacle in this case is the Womb of Mary.
O noble Virgin, truly you are greater
than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures
shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the
Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides." Athanasius,
Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).
A virgin, innocent,
spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns." Theodotus
of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).
"[T]he very fact that God
has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had
been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary." Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).
The Fundamentalists argue that Mary could not have been born without Original sin because she herself
admitted to being saved when she called God her savior in the Magnificat. But...
The medieval theologians argued that Mary was saved like everyone else (and Jesus died for her, too, as that
is where all salvation and redemption comes from), but in a different fashion. They used the analogy of a pit in the forest.
If someone falls in and is rescued by a rope from someone up above, they are "saved." But it is also true that if
someone reaches out and "rescues" them before they are about to fall in, they are also "saved." The pit
represents sin (and original sin), and the rescuer is God and His grace. Mary never fell into the pit, but it doesn't
follow that she was not saved or not rescued from it. She certainly was, and it was entirely by God's grace, and must
have been, since she had only been in existence for a moment when it happened. [www.socrates58.blogspot.com]
Other defenses of the Immaculate Conception are voluminous and most are quite lengthy. This is an attempt at boiling
down these defenses into as brief a statement as possible.
Mary's
Perpetual Virginity
Argument: Mary obviously was not perpetually
a virgin; afterall, Jesus had brothers and sisters as indicated several times in the New Testament.
Begin explanation here:
To be written. . . .
