Sr. Edith Selzler on the Immaculate Conception of . . . Mary:
The title of the feast has sometimes led to confusion about who was being immaculately conceived, many thinking it was Jesus through Mary’s virginity. Not so; it was Mary herself, being conceived without the effects of original sin from which Jesus saves us all. She received this gift of salvation “retroactively,” so to speak, therefore being born without stain or any touch of the unsanctified. This concept troubles those who would say that the Gospels and other scriptures say nothing of this, that it is a concoction by fervent devotees of Mary. However, there is a great deal of biblical support for why God would do such a thing for this one human person.
December 8th, 2011 | 2:01 pm
Hoo boy. Here we go. A Biblical defense of a Marian Catholic dogma.
This should be fun. St. Bernadette, pray for us.
December 8th, 2011 | 2:39 pm
The Ark of the Covenant held the Ten Commandments.
The Ark of the Covenant was covered in gold and treated reverently.
Mary’s body held the Christ.
Therefore, Mary was born without original sin.
Is this the best Biblical case? Very well then.
December 8th, 2011 | 2:48 pm
Potuit, decuit, ergo fecit!
December 8th, 2011 | 3:20 pm
Good grief, this is a basic analogical fallacy. You might as well argue that because Jesus is referred to in the Bible as the vine, he needed to be watered.
December 8th, 2011 | 3:54 pm
Pastor:
Actually, prior to the Reformation virtually every Christian theologian believed that Mary was born without original sin. The debate was over when the original sin was removed. Some thought she was conceived without it. Others, like Aquinas, believed it was removed after she was animated.
Today’s feast day is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, not the Feast of the Immaculate Birth.
Click my name and read more about Aquinas’ view.
December 8th, 2011 | 4:44 pm
Stephen: Good grief, this is a basic analogical fallacy.
I am no historian, and also no theologian, but I don’t believe that the Christians who accept the Immaculate Conception primarily base their beliefs on a logical syllogism as you seem to be assuming.
Instead, the reasoning seems to me to be a few steps removed from reasoning directly from the bible. The tradition reflects a lengthy reflection on the experience of generations of Christians and the biblical arguments are used to defend the doctrine as reasonable and in accord with the Bible.
The idea is that the tradition is consistent with the Bible, not directly defined in the Bible. And so the Biblical evidence is considered supportive and persuasive, not definitive. When Gabriel says Mary is “full of grace,” perhaps that means she is a person in whom there is nothing opposed to grace, for instance. Sinless. But how could someone be sinless if we all inherit original sin?
OR we could reflect on the idea that Mary is the Mother of God. What would be the qualities of someone who is the Mother of God? Since Jesus is so special, then his Mother who gave him flesh, carried him in her womb, and nurtured him, would also likely be special. Or at least “it is fitting” that she would be very special, even if not strictly necessary that she be so.
Plus, when she appeared to St. Bernadette, she said her name was “The Immaculate Conception.” And when she gave St. Catherine Laboure the Miraculous Medal, it had inscribed on it the prayer, “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you.” I find these to be rather persuasive as well.
December 8th, 2011 | 4:51 pm
What I think may be particularly difficult for Protestants to accept is that the Immaculate Conception isn’t a doctrine. It is a doga, one of only two (the other being the Assumption) to have been infallibly declared by a pope. This is not to say that Catholics do not believe many other teaching by popes are not infallible, but rather in declaring the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, Pius IX and Pius XII made it clear that they were speaking “ex cathedra.”
December 8th, 2011 | 4:56 pm
I hate to be the crank with his idee fixe (see the recent thread “On Biblical Authority”), but I might point out that there is just as much biblical authority for the Immaculate Conception as there is (for example) for the reason why the Gospel of Luke, or the Book of Hebrews, is in the New Testament.
That is to say, those books are in the New Testament because the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, says so.
December 8th, 2011 | 5:10 pm
Wasn’t this the same kind of process used to define the doctrine of the Trinity? The word doesn’t appear in the bible, but it gets defined through the tradition thinking about what the Gospels mean.
December 8th, 2011 | 6:35 pm
The Protestants are right to disparage the article, the Catholics to defend it. The article is suggestive but incomplete. Here’s my attempt, abbreviated as I am typing this on a smart phone.
The first problem is the method of interpreting scripture. What Catholics call the Allegorical sense of scripture was ratified by our Divine Lord on the road to Emmaus, when he showed how the entire Old Testament pre-figured him. That is the Allegorical sense. For example much of Isaiah is literally about Cyrus but allegorically about Jesus the Messiah. And so for Abraham, Moses, David, and Jonah–all pre-figure Christ. The church too is pre-figured, all the sacraments, and Mary herself.
So take the return of the Ark to Jerusalem: the ark that contains the signs of the covenant, its extreme holiness and the duty to handle it according to God’s commands, its arduous journey, the three months in the house of Obed-Edom, David leaping before it. All pre-figure Mary, the one who bears the sign of the new covenant, who travels to Elizabeth’s house and stays for three months, where John the Baptist leaps in his mother’s womb. Luke in his Gospel infancy narrative mirrors the chapters from Samuel with an unmistakable intention to tie Jesus to the Davidic prophecy and kingship. It strains logic to believe that the ark that bore the tablets and the staff of the prophet of Exodus, the ark that was so holy a man was smitten dead for his carelessness and disobedience in touching it, could be more holy than the living vessel who by God’s unique favor conceived and carried the son of God and followed him to the cross. She is by God’s favor spotless, untouched, immaculately conceived, sinless always, and a perpetual virgin.
December 8th, 2011 | 6:41 pm
Thanks for the link, Joe.
FWIW, I give you Luther:
“She [Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin…God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil…God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God protected her from all that might be hurtful to her” (Luther’s Works, ed. Lehmann; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968, 43:40).
December 8th, 2011 | 6:54 pm
David is right. It is hard to understand why a person’s salvation is contingent upon belief in the Immaculate Conception, particularly since the whole idea was not known for the first few centuries of the Church, and written references were not to be found all that time. The other problem of course is that St. Paul stated that there was no one without sin except Jesus.
December 8th, 2011 | 8:22 pm
“It is hard to understand why a person’s salvation is contingent upon belief in the Immaculate Conception.”
Dear Beth: After reading this, I went back and re-read the original article, the article concerning it, and all the posts on this thread.
Who said anything even close to this?
December 8th, 2011 | 9:38 pm
Pastor Spomer: Indeed the physical vessel that carried the tablets etc. was of sublime holiness. It was also the throne of God. But to say as you do “Mary’s body carried Jesus” or some such is dismissive of her unique role in salvation and indeed of motherhood in its regular sense. Mary was not like the basket that carried Moses. She far surpasses your description. By an act of consent she conceived the Christ as his mother in her womb. She gave birth to him. She nursed him, fed him, initiated him into all the rites of his religion, and taught him. She also ensured his Davidic sonship by consenting to marry Joseph, who raised him to manhood and protected him by obedience to the angels.
Craig Payne: Beth is correct, David Nickol pointed out that the Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the church, like the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the entire Nicene Creed for that matter–it is called an “article of faith,” meaning that the faithful are obliged to assent to it, even if they do not fully understand it. To obstinately oppose this teaching, for a Catholic, is always objectively disordered and subjectively may be a sin for that person, depending on various factors. The immaculate conception is a long-standing teaching or doctrine (which still requires assent of a different kind), but was only defined as infallible dogma in 1854. The Assumption of Mary was defined as such in 1950.
December 8th, 2011 | 9:38 pm
Let’s also recall that it was on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1991 that the Soviet Union was legally dissolved.
In 1917, Our Lady of Fatima had told the Portugese child shepherds that Russia was going to spread a terrible evil in the world, that the Church had to pray for it to be defeated, and
“If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.”
And on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, 1991, that’s what happened.
December 8th, 2011 | 10:48 pm
The other problem of course is that St. Paul stated that there was no one without sin except Jesus.
Not quite. St. Paul says that all are subject to sin, inasmuch as all have sinned. Now, be careful with your universal qualifiers. It is certainly not the case that every individual ever conceived has sinned; infants, for instance, die without having committed a sinful act. Surely you don’t think Paul means to say that infants or the stillborn have committed personal sin, and Catholics (indeed, all non-Pelagians) have always believed that Paul’s point that everyone, even infants and the Virgin Mary, requires salvation.
Rather, Paul is saying that just as everyone who commits sin does so on account of the effects of Adam’s sin, likewise everyone who receives the grace of justification does so on account of the New Adam’s act (and, more generally, not through any personal merit from observance of the Law).
Catholic belief is that Mary was also subject to the effects of Adam’s sin, inasmuch as she would have been born in original sin if God had not applied the merits of Christ’s sacrifice to her at the moment of her conception. The Catholic teaching is also that God did this not from necessity, but because it pleased him to do so. Thus, the Catholic teaching is consistent with Paul’s thesis, and also gives some explanation of what Mary meant when she sang in the Gospel that the Lord had done great things for her (things, in the plural).
Catholics do not assert that anyone’s salvation is dependent on accepting the Immaculate Conception. Thomas Aquinas, for example.
December 8th, 2011 | 10:52 pm
I agree that the Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the faith that Catholics are obliged to accept as true. But it’s not exactly true to say that it is “necessary for salvation,” in my understanding.
For instance, someone could be invincibly ignorant in their denial of the dogma and still be saved. Or someone could have never heard of it at all and still be saved. Even “obstinate opposition” is subjectively sinful only in certain circumstances, as David DeP acknowledges.
But it is a very good thing to know and love Christ’s mother in all the glory in which she has been revealed to the Church. You’re missing something beautiful that God wants you to have if you don’t have Our Blessed Mother in your life.
December 9th, 2011 | 7:36 am
I agree that the Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the faith that Catholics are obliged to accept as true. But it’s not exactly true to say that it is “necessary for salvation,” in my understanding.
sallyr,
While I don’t exactly disagree with what you say, here is the definition of the Immaculate Conception from Ineffabilis Deus (Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854) and the paragraph immediately following:
That’s pretty strong!
December 9th, 2011 | 9:43 am
re: “That’s pretty strong!”
True – but nobody likes to hear their mother disparaged.
Although I do recall a priest who stressed the role of the Blessed Mother in spiritual warfare who liked to say “Our Mother wears combat boots!”
December 9th, 2011 | 10:12 am
sallyr,
I went to Catholic school through 12th grade, and the aspect of Catholic education and Catholicism in general that the pope’s strong words bring to mind for me are the requirements to believe. I was once in a high school religion class of very bright students, and our teacher presented us with something (I don’t remember exactly what, but it was about some Church teachings on sex) that the class raised all kinds of objections to. He conceded that he needed to do more research, and in a later class he presented us with additional arguments, and the class raised even more objections. His response this time was, “I can’t explain it, but this is what you have to believe.”
Not to imply that the class was necessarily right and the teaching we argued against was wrong, but it does bring to mind this famous passage in Alice in Wonderland:
December 9th, 2011 | 10:18 am
To avoid mixing up who was conceived on Immaculate Conception, do the calendar math.
Jesus: birthday celebrated on 12/25, so conception is 9 months earlier on 3/25 (Annunciation)
Mary: birthday celebrated on 9/8, so conception is 9 months earlier on 12/8 (I.C.), although the Orthodox celebrate her conception today (12/9).
December 9th, 2011 | 11:12 am
DN: “His response this time was, “I can’t explain it, but this is what you have to believe.”
And from that did you conclude that he wasn’t a very good teacher or that the teaching was wrong? I’ve found that teaching is a lot harder than people appreciate, and I would imagine that High School is probably harder than higher levels.
I would be curious to know, however, what prompts you to compare this incident to the Alice in Wonderland quote — is it that you think there are aspects of Catholicism that are so absurd that they are “impossible to believe”?
Because your high school teacher’s answer sounds pretty reasonable to me – acknowledging his limitations, but asserting that the Church’s teaching is authoritative does not sound absurd to me.
It’s not impossible to believe that I could lack sufficient time, effort, or wisdom to completely know all aspects of the truths of the faith, and yet to assent to them because that part I do know of them (and knowing the love of God that underlies them) gives me the confidence to accept the rest.
December 9th, 2011 | 11:30 am
David,
I doubt that the Pius IX whom you quote above would anathematize the Pius IX who wrote that for those who reject the Catholic Church, “…if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.” After all, they’re the same dude.
Perhaps that’s even your point in bringing up Alice in Wonderland, but I wanted to be sure. Of course, “invincible ignorance” is another can of worms altogether.
December 9th, 2011 | 11:51 am
Rather than Alice in Wonderland, this discussion brings to mind an under-appreciated virtue: docility.
An interesting article is here: http://catholicexchange.com/2003/07/10/81540/
from which I quote in part:
A doctor is primarily a teacher. A doctrine is that which he teaches. Docility is the virtue of teachableness in students that allows them to be taught by a doctor who teaches them a doctrine.
Docility, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is related to the virtue of prudence. Specifically, it is that part of prudence that allows us to acquire knowledge through the teaching of another. The Angelic Doctor points out that even the most learned people need to be docile, since no man is completely self-sufficient in matters of prudence. We all stand in great need of being taught by others.
It is easy for people to be docile when they are aware of their own desperation. If one is lost in a foreign city, let us say, it is easy to be docile to a local citizen who can give us directions. The great problem with docility, however, is that people are often unaware of their own desperation. That is, they do not know they are lost.
Contemporary university students, as Allan Bloom has pointed out in The Closing of the American Mind, are notoriously lost and indocile. When a person who is lost is also indocile, needless to say, his indocility assures that he will continue to be lost.
Trenchant!!
December 9th, 2011 | 12:38 pm
[...] Over in the combox thread at First Things, proponents of Immaculate Conception try to build a better argument (with varying degrees of success). Craig Payne cites the argument that always gets me: i.e., we believe this doctrine for the same reason we believe the books of Hebrews and Revelation belong in the canon of Scripture—because the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, said that it was so. Protestants—for obvious reasons—tend to not accept this line of reasoning. On the other hand, Leroy Huizenga cites the authority of Martin Luther: “She [Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin…God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil…God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God protected her from all that might be hurtful to her” (Luther’s Works, ed. Lehmann; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968, 43:40). [...]
December 9th, 2011 | 1:26 pm
After all, they’re the same dude.
Jack,
He’s also the same dude who condemned, in the Syllabus of Errors, the following statement:
Of course, “invincible ignorance” is another can of worms altogether.
And how about the notion that one has freedom of conscience, but that a conscience must be “well formed”? I have seen definitions of well formed conscience that for all practical purposes rule out freedom of conscience.
December 9th, 2011 | 2:25 pm
David,
I don’t think Pius IX is contradicting himself with that statement, either.
And how about the notion that one has freedom of conscience, but that a conscience must be “well formed”?
I agree; that’s a can of worms, too. I’d also submit the notion of sensus fidelium. But we could do this all day, I bet.
December 9th, 2011 | 2:41 pm
sallyr,
Would you say it is untrue that Catholicism puts an emphasis—unlike any other Christian denomination (and perhaps unlike any religion at all)—on assent to propositions regarding faith and morals that are regarded to be “sure and certain” or “infallibly” true? If what the Catholic Church teaches to be certain and infallibly true is indeed 100% true, then it really is the “one true faith,” and everyone else is wrong. If it teaches one thing as infallibly true that is, in fact, not true, then the whole edifice crumbles, or so it is often argued by Catholics.
It seems to me that if there were potential Catholic converts who accepted everything the Church taught except the Immaculate Conception, they could not in good conscience become converts or be received by the Church as converts. (I would be more than glad to have someone argue me out of that notion.) Ironically, from what we learn from surveys, they would believe a great deal more in Catholicism than the vast majority of Catholics do!
I commend my teacher for going back the first time to do additional research. In an ideal world, the second time he met with arguments from the class that he could not deal with, perhaps he would have promised to get back to us another day and later presented us with a reading list of books on Catholic moral theology. When something is arrived at through reason rather than divine revelation (as I believe moral teachings are), it should never be the case for a teacher to say, “This is what you have to believe.” No one should “have to” believe anything. I don’t think believing is an act of will, hence the quote from Alice in Wonderland.
December 9th, 2011 | 3:21 pm
DN: Would you say it is untrue that Catholicism puts an emphasis—unlike any other Christian denomination (and perhaps unlike any religion at all)—on assent to propositions regarding faith and morals that are regarded to be “sure and certain” or “infallibly” true?
I say – no it seems to me that all religions assert that what they teach is really 100% true. I think the Catholic Church goes to greater lengths to spell out those doctrines (which I regard as commendable) and to demonstrate the reasonableness of what it teaches than others.
But saying something is true because the Bible (or the Torah, the Koran, Vishnu) and that rejecting those sources of authority means you are a bad believer happens all the time.
I wouldn’t give your high school teacher all the blame. My point in linking to the article on docility was that it’s not necessarily your teacher’s fault, nor the fault of Catholic doctrine, that a bunch of high school boys might be extra special resistant to a doctrine limiting their sexual impulses.
Sometimes people find lots of objections to a doctrine because they know that if they accept it as true they will have to alter their behavior. And we all know that it’s possible to generate a million objections to any proposition if we are so inclined.
December 9th, 2011 | 7:08 pm
As a Melkite Greek Catholic, I do not find a “Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary” on my Typicon for 8 December. I do find a “Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne”, for 9 December–nine months minus a day from the Feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos on 8 September, in contrast to the perfect nine months between the Annunciation on 25 March and the Nativity of Christ on 25 December. No, we didn’t screw up the math, we did it on purpose.
And, although we hold the Theotokos to have been sinless throughout her life, we find the doctrine of her immaculate conception to be redundant and unnecessary within the context of our Eastern Christian anthropology, because we do not believe that man is born with a “stain” of original sin, but rather bears the consequences (death and corruption) of Adam’s fall, which lead all men to sin. Since all mankind, including Mary, is born without any stain of original sin, the doctrine of the immaculate conception is not necessary to preserve Christ from the imputation of original sin through his birth by a woman.
Interestingly, while we acknowledge Mary as Theotokos, “All-Holy” (Panagia) and “All-pure”, and profess that she is without sin, at the same time the Troparion of the Resurrection says:
Having beheld the resurrection of Christ,
Let us adore the holy Lord Jesus,
Who alone is without sin. . .
Rather than try to reconcile or explain this apparent dichotomy, we are content to let it remain as part of the mystery of salvation.
December 10th, 2011 | 12:25 am
quote: It seems to me that if there were potential Catholic converts who accepted everything the Church taught except the Immaculate Conception, they could not in good conscience become converts or be received by the Church as converts.
It seems to me that if there is such a person, I’d like to meet him or her. That would take some very special person to believe absolutely everything EXCEPT the Immaculate Conception.
At the very least, such a person would also have to disbelieve the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, wouldn’t they?
December 10th, 2011 | 4:44 am
Fr Oakes S.J. wrote a very interesting article on this topic in First Things some time ago (and I don’t remember which whether the magazine or the daily article.)
A point which I seem to remember was that, if Mary was not free of the stain of original sin at the time of the Annunciation, then the whole of salvation history hinged on the “yes” of a person who, stricken by the sinful aspects of her nature, might equally well say “no.”
There’s an interesting parallel in the Gospel of St Luke. At 1:18-20:
‘And Zechariah said to the angel, “How shall I know this, for I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years?” And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God; and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.”‘
At 1:34 ff:
‘And Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no husband?”‘
The angel then explains to Mary, and Mary says “yes.” 1:38
‘And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”‘
So, what’s the difference? The apparent meaning of the words is the same: a questioning of the validity of this announcement. Is God just playing favourites, or is there some difference in the interior disposition of the priest of the division of Abijah and the girl from Nazareth?
December 10th, 2011 | 2:47 pm
It seems to me that if there is such a person, I’d like to meet him or her.
slats,
It was purely a hypothetical intended to make the point that Catholics are “required” to believe in a number of specific doctrines which are taken by the Church to be absolutely certain and beyond question. Let me restate Pius IX’s words about his declaration of the Immaculate Conception:
I suppose, though, that my hypothetical person could claim to believe in the infallibility of the pope and argue that, in spite of what is nearly universally accepted, Pius IX was not speaking infallibly when he defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. There are certainly disputes about whether other papal statements are infallible or not.
In any case, the point is that the Catholic Church demands assent to a great many propositions before a potential convert is accepted into the Church, which I think sets it apart from most religions, although sallyr—by whom I am impressed—disagrees.
December 12th, 2011 | 12:34 pm
>>>It seems to me that if there is such a person, I’d like to meet him or her.<<<
That would, I guess, include me and quite a large percentage of Eastern Catholics who, while affirming that the Virgin Mary was preserved without sin throughout her life, cannot affirm that her conception was in any way different from that of ordinary human beings.
The doctrine of the immaculate conception is founded on what, for a better name, might be called Augustinian or Western Christian assumptions about the nature and effects of the Fall of Adam, and in particular, the notion that man inherits a stain of "original sin". As with all mariological doctrines, this one is actually christological: under Augustinian assumptions, it would be impossible for Christ to be both (a) born of a woman; and (b) free from all sin, including original sin, unless (c) the woman in question were somehow exempt from the stain of original sin herself. The idea was controversial even in the West when first broached in the Middle Ages, but gained popularity thereafter, and was almost universally accepted in the Western Church by the 19th century.
In the Christian East, as I have explained, such a doctrine is unnecessary, because we believe man does not inherit any stain of original sin. Therefore, it is not necessary that Mary be conceived in a manner different from anyone else, because there is no christological reason for it.
To positively affirm the doctrine of the immaculate conception would pose a host of problems in Eastern Christian theology, particularly with regard to human anthropology and soteriology (in particular, the doctrines of synergia and theosis).
On the other hand, there is no need for us to positively affirm the doctrine, since it is irrelevant in our system of theology–a system which the Holy See for more than a century has been calling upon Eastern Catholics to recover and restore.
As the Orthodox theologian, Metropolitan Kallistos of Deiocliea has written, it is perfectly acceptable for an individual Orthodox Christian to hold the doctrine of the immaculate conception as a personal opinion, but quite another thing to impose it dogmatically upon others. And it is noteworthy that, in its discussions with the Orthodox Churches, the Catholic Church has never once brought up acceptance of this doctrine as a precondition for reconciliation and the reestablishment of communion.
From my perspective, both Latin and Eastern Catholics share the same underlying truth of the doctrine–that Mary was preserved from all sin–while having different ways of expressing or explaining the doctrine, each of which is perfectly legitimate within the Great Tradition of the undivided Church.
December 12th, 2011 | 12:42 pm
Re. Peter West: Fr Oakes S.J. wrote a very interesting article on this topic in First Things some time ago (and I don’t remember which whether the magazine or the daily article.) A point which I seem to remember was that, if Mary was not free of the stain of original sin at the time of the Annunciation, then the whole of salvation history hinged on the “yes” of a person who, stricken by the sinful aspects of her nature, might equally well say “no.”
I think this misses the point of being conceived wtihout original sin. Mary, without original sin, was equal to Adam and Eve in potential of saying NO to God. If she couldn’t say NO, then it would not have been a choice. Being without original sin doesn’t prevent one from sinning. The only prerequisite to sin is to have a choice.
December 13th, 2011 | 11:47 am
Wow! Such delightful commotion I did not expect. Thanks to all of you who made me realize that I shouldn’t have been so concerned about space but should have made the point that I was not trying to “prove” the Immaculate Conception. Rather I was employing a technique of scriptural analysis and disputation very popular in Jesus’ day and one that the gospels have him use frequently and that the New Testament Letters (especially Paul’s) also use. The form is called “qal-va-omer” – “how much more.” If something is true in that circumstance, how much more would it seem so in this one.
These examples should be very familiar: “…if God so clothes the grass of the field…will he not much more clothe you?” (MT 6:30) “If you then who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your chidren, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (LK 1:13) “If the ministry of death, chiseled in letters on stone tablets, came in glory…how much more will the ministry of the Spirit come in glory.” (II COR 3:7)
Only once does Jesus use the method yo “prove” something, in MT12:11-12…”So then it is lawful to good on the Sabbath.” Usually it is used to say, “Doesn’t that seem reasonable and fair, considering both examples?” Does it not seem reasonable that if God would be so particular about his occasional “digs” (he did appear above the glory seat of ark a few times (see IS 6:1-8) and where the tablets representing his covenant and love for Israel resided, that so much more would God be particular about where his Beloved Son would reside? It’s not proof, it’s “Doesn’t that seem reasonable and consistent?”
Again, thank you all for your sharing, and a blessed Christmas to everyone.
S. Edith
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact