Questions for Catholics - Part 2

Posted by Scott Windsor, Sr. at 9/27/2015 11:56:00 AM
 

As a continuation of the "Questions for Catholics" series, which are in response to the Moriel Ministries, Jacob Prasch website this section we will answer to the questions of "Co-" which Moriel/Prasch has put forth.  

We are told in the New Testament there is one intercessor between God and man, Jesus the righteous. (1 Tim. 2:5) One intercessor, only one, Jesus. Man can’t reach God so God had to reach man by becoming one of us. If there is one intercessor, how can I be expected to believe that Mary “co-redeemed” us, “co-saved” us, and she is the “co-mediatrix” if there’s only one Savior? The Hebrew prophets said all along, “Yahweh – God is our Savior; there is no Savior but Me”. (Is. 43:11; Hos. 13:4) Only one Savior, only one intercessor.

We must begin by explaining that "co-" does not mean "another" it means "with."  That being said, the use of such "co-" terms in Catholicism, thus far, are not dogmatically defined.  No Catholic is "bound" to use such terms, but even so - what do they really mean?  Are these terms fundamentally wrong?  Let us take them one at a time in the order Moriel/Prasch has presented them.

Co-Redeemed:  The title used by some (and again, not all) Catholics is actually "Co-Redemptrix." In, what we refer to as "the economy of salvation," the Blessed Virgin most definitely plays a role.  While she is not THE Redeemer, it was through her fiat that the Redeemer came to us.  Had she not consented we can be sure that God would have chosen another vessel/ark to carry the Only Begotten Son of the Father and through the Holy Ghost, but since she gave her fiat such speculations are a bit of a waste of time.  The Blessed Virgin and Mother was with the Christ throughout his mortal life and now in eternity.   So how did she assist with the redemption process?

1. She said "Yes" (her fiat).  When confronted by the archangel Gabriel, she consented "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word." (Luke 1:38).
2. At the first public miracle, the Wedding at Cana, she instructed the servants to "do as He told them," even though just previous to that Jesus had shown reluctance to begin the public ministry and miracles but through His mother's prompting and perhaps due to her prompting - the water becomes wine.
3. She passively followed Him throughout His life and even through the via delorosa, for which she is also known as Our Lady of Sorrows.  Through life, death and then in resurrection and beyond, the Blessed Mother was and is with her Son.
4. In John 19:25-27 we see with Jesus on the Cross giving His Mother over to St. John to be his Mother and he her son, as a handing on of that relationship to all of us.
5. During the formation of the Church, the Blessed Mother was there with the Apostles at the Pentecost gathering and post-paschal events.
6. Our Blessed Mother remains at Jesus' side in Heaven.

Now, is our redemption due to the actions of the Blessed Mother?  Yes!  Is she THE Redeemer?  No!  While not being THE Redeemer, she most definitely played a role - and thus the title of "Co-Redemptrix" is appropriate.  Not only is it appropriate for her, but each of us should work as co-redemptors in bringing more to the One, True Faith.

Co-Saved:  I am not familiar with any Catholic teaching or title for the Blessed Mother co-saving us or her having the title of Co-Savior.  This assertion is nothing more than a red herring argument attempting to draw us off-track from real teachings and/or practices of the Catholic Church.



Co-Mediatrix:  Now here I believe Moriel/Prasch is confusing topics.  While this IS a topic of apologetics for Catholics - this article appears to be equivocating "mediatrix" with "savior" since the author states:  

If there is one intercessor, how can I be expected to believe that Mary “co-redeemed” us, “co-saved” us, and she is the “co-mediatrix” if there’s only one Savior? The Hebrew prophets said all along, “Yahweh – God is our Savior; there is no Savior but Me”. (Is. 43:11; Hos. 13:4) Only one Savior, only one intercessor.

There is a theological difference between one who intercedes and one who saves.  The Blessed Mother (again) is not our Savior, who is Jesus Christ, alone but this author mixes and interchanges the terms as if they are equal.  As Catholics, we believe in, as the Apostles Creed professes, "the communion of saints," which refers to ALL the saints - whether part of the Church Militant (those of us still here on Earth fighting for our Faith), the Church Suffering (those in Purgatory who can surely use our prayers) and the Church Triumphant (those saints who are in Heaven).  We do not believe that the death of the body equates to the death of the person.  The person carries on into eternity either in or on the way to Heaven, or in Hell and eternal damnation.  Those saints who are part of the Church Triumphant are alive in Heaven, and we ask them - through the communion of saints - to pray with and for us.  The Blessed Mother, in her very special role and relationship to her Son makes her a very special one among the Church Triumphant to intercede for and with us.  No Christian is an island, we all rely upon each other for support and the death of the body does not end the life of the soul, so again we turn to those in Heaven and ask them to continue praying for us who still struggle with the trials and temptations of this life.



I would add as well, while the term "Co-Mediatrix" is used by many Catholics, like "Co-Redemptrix" there is no dogma binding all Catholics to accept this terminology.  While, as I have explained above, there is nothing "wrong" with the terms - if they make you feel uncomfortable, do not use them - you don't have to.




Part Three - Purgatory


Copied from: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2015/09/questions-for-catholics-part-2.html

God Bless
Nathan

Questions for Catholics - Part 1

Questions For Catholics Part 1

Posted by Scott Windsor, Sr. at 9/27/2015 09:47:00 AM

 

With a little prompting from my priest, I am beginning a series of responses to Moriel Ministries which has presented "Five Questions for Catholics," however the article title says the number is thirty-three and perhaps through secondary questions they reach the higher number, but the inconsistency is noted upfront.

Who is this?  James Jacob Prasch (Jacob Prasch) was raised in a mixed household of Catholic and Jewish.  He states he was "forced" to attend Catholic school as a youth, but also attending the Jewish Community Center.  This left him agnostic and in college while he was attempting to use science to disprove Christianity but came to the conclusion that it took more faith to reject Jesus and the Bible than to accept it.  Subscribing to Marxism and the "hippee culture" and nearly subcombing to drugs, he hit bottom and "put his faith in Jesus."  He and Moriel (have not found more about Moriel on the site which bares his name) got together in Moriel Ministries, which Prasch is now the director.

Without further ado, let us proceed into the series of questions presented to Catholics.

https://www.moriel.org/five-questions/33-questions-for-catholics.html

The first question we come to on Moriel's homepage is "Should I believe Mary or the Vatican?"

Without doubt Mary – her real name was “Miryam” – Mary the mother of Jesus was the greatest woman who ever lived.
The angel Gabriel. the archangel “Gabriy’el”, “the mighty one of God” appeared to her and told her that God Himself would become incarnate inside of her, she would be the mother of the Messiah, the Savior, who would save His people from their sin. This is the greatest woman who ever lived. And the greatest woman who ever lived, who has ever lived, was told she’s going to be the mother of the Savior who would save His people from their sin in the Magnificat in St. Luke’s Gospel. (Lk. 1:46-55) The only thing that the greatest woman who ever lived could say when she was told she was the greatest woman who ever lived – “Blessed are you among women” (Lk. 1:42) – and she was told she’s going to be the mother of the Savior who would save His people from their sin is, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior”. (Lk. 1:47)
If the greatest woman who ever lived tells me that she needs to be saved from sin, that she needs a Savior when she's told she's going to be the mother of the Savior who would save people from sin, who am I to argue with the greatest woman who ever lived? Who am I to argue with St. Luke? When God says, “All have sinned, all fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), “None is righteous, no not one”, (Rom. 3:10) Well who am I to argue with God? I believe Mary, but we have Ineffablilis Deus, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
If all have sinned and all full short of the glory of God, and if Mary said she needs to be saved from sin, who do I believe: Mary or the Vatican? Personally, I believe Mary. I'm convinced Mary was right; I'm convinced that Mary told the truth; I'm convinced all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God.

 

Well, first off in the passage cited is not the Blessed Mother admitting to have sinned, but only "My spirit rejoices in God my Savior."  Did Mary need a savior?  Yes!  In the definition of the Immaculate Conception (hereafter IC) of the the Blessed Virgin Mary (found here) it says:

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.

 

Note, it says she was preserved from the stain of original sin, not the penalty!  The Blessed Virgin, whom Catholics would agree with Moriel/Prasch, is the "greatest woman who ever lived," did not need to be freed from the stain of any actual sin - but from the penalty of original sin.  The Blessed Virgin therefore too needed the Savior, the Redeemer, the Messiah.  It should also be noted that in the entire document of Ineffabilis Deus, that one sentence is the only "infallible" statement.

The author of the article (whether it be Moriel or Prasch) goes on to say:

The Roman church speculated and then deduced that if that was the case, Jesus would have been born from a sinful vessel. But if Mary had no sin, by the same token that would have to mean that Mary's mother had no sin, and that Mary's grandmother had no sin, and that Mary’s great-grandmother had no sin all the way back to Eve. But we know Eve had sin and we know Mary had sin.

Yes, we know Eve had sin, but Scripture does not tell us that Mary had sin and again the definition of the IC only states she was preserved from the stain, not the penalty.  We also do not need to buy into the slippery slope (invalid) argument that if Mary was without sin, her mother must have been and her grandmother, etc., etc., for the Catholic teaching on the IC is that the Blessed Virgin, alone, was singled out "in the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God."  So not only is the Moriel/Prasch argument a slippery slope, it is a straw man built upon a faulty premise that the author proceeds to knock down.  If we know our Catholic Faith, we are not taken in by such invalid argumentation.

The author goes on to state and ask:

Again, this doctrine was not proclaimed until modern times, until the 20th Century. Do you believe Mary was wrong?

The definition of the IC was proclaimed in 1864, that would make it the 19th Century, which is a minor error here, but nonetheless, an error.  One would think that an author who is based in science would not make such an error and especially publish it. Am I the first to point this out to him?  It will be interesting to see if that statement changes on their website.  The timing of the actual definition is really inconsequential, and that would lead us to question Moriel/Prasch - does the Church have the authority to bind or loose such things?  The answer to that is a resounding YES!  In Matthew 16:18-19, in a singular decree our Blessed Lord bestows that authority on St. Peter, alone and then two chapters later that authority is also given to the Apostles (the Bishoprick) as a group in Matthew 18:18, but that takes us down another (however much more fundamental) path, so, for now, let us not digress.   

Now, to answer the question, "Do you believe Mary was wrong?"  No, as stated earlier, the Blessed Virgin was not wrong, but the premise of the Moriel/Prasch argument is wrong which leaves them with nothing but a house of cards which has just been knocked down.

 

Copied from:  http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2015/09/questions-for-catholics-part-1.html

 

The Assumption of Mary

The Assumption



The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.



The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."



The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.





Complement to the Immaculate Conception



Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.



The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, "Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might." If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.



Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin" (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].





Mary’s Cooperation



Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory.



All Christians believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say "yes" to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.





The Bible Only?



Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false.



Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.



The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).





Copied and adapted from
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption



God Bless
Nathan

Mary: Mother of God

Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinctpersons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the "Nestorian" church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.

Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

 

Copied and pasted from:  http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god

God Bless
Nathan

Son of Mary: A Reflection from Scott Hahn

Readings:

Ezekiel 2:2-5
Psalm 123:1-4
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
Mark 6:1-6

As we've walked with the apostles in the Gospels in recent weeks, we've witnessed Jesus command the wind and sea, and order a little girl to arise from the dead. But He seems to meet His match in His hometown of Nazareth. Today's Gospel is blunt: "He was not able to perform any mighty deed there."

Why not? Because of the people's lack of faith. They acknowledged the wisdom of His words, the power of His works. But they refused to recognize Him as a prophet come among them, a messenger sent by God.

All they could see was how much “this man” was like them - a carpenter, the son of their neighbor, Mary, with brothers and sisters.

Of course, Mary was ever-virgin, and had no other children. The Gospel refers to Jesus' brothers as Paul refers to all Israelites as his brothers, the children of Abraham (see Romans 9:3,7).

That's the point in today's Gospel, too. Like the prophet Ezekiel in today's First Reading, Jesus was sent by God to the rebellious house of Israel, where He found His own brothers and sisters obstinate of heart and in revolt against God. 

The servant is not above the Master (see Matthew 10:24). As His disciples, we too face the mockery and contempt we hear of in today's Psalm. And isn't it often hardest to live our faith among those in our own families, those who think they really know us, who define us by the people we used to be - before we chose to walk with Jesus?

As Paul confides in today's Epistle, insults and hardships are God's way of teaching us to rely solely on His grace.

Jesus will work no mighty deeds in our lives unless we abandon ourselves to Him in faith. Blessed then are those who take no offense in Him (see Luke 7:23). Instead, we must look upon Him with the eyes of servants - knowing that the son of Mary is also the Lord enthroned in the heavens.

Yours in Christ,
Scott Hahn, Ph.D.

The Holy Family

December 28, 2014 - Feast of the Holy Family

Our True Home

Readings
Sirach 3:2-6,12-14
Psalm 128:1-5
Colossians 3:12-21
Luke 2:41-52

---

 

Why did Jesus choose to become a baby born of a mother and father and to spend all but His last years living in an ordinary human family? In part, to reveal God’s plan to make all people live as one “holy family” in His Church (see 2 Corinthians 6:16-18).

In the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, God reveals our true home. We’re to live as His children, “chosen ones, holy and beloved,” as the First Reading puts it.

The family advice we hear in today’s readings - for mothers, fathers and children - is all solid and practical. Happy homes are the fruit of our faithfulness to the Lord, we sing in today’s Psalm. But the Liturgy is inviting us to see more, to see how, through our family obligations and relationships, our families become heralds of the family of God that He wants to create on earth.

Jesus shows us this in today’s Gospel. His obedience to His earthly parents flows directly from His obedience to the will of His heavenly Father. Joseph and Mary aren’t identified by name, but three times are called “his parents” and are referred to separately as his “mother” and “father.” The emphasis is all on their “familial” ties to Jesus. But these ties are emphasized only so that Jesus, in the first words He speaks in Luke’s Gospel, can point us beyond that earthly relationship to the Fatherhood of God.

In what Jesus calls “My Father’s house,” every family finds its true meaning and purpose (see Ephesians 3:15). The Temple we read about in the Gospel today is God’s house, His dwelling (see Luke 19:46). But it’s also an image of the family of God, the Church (see Ephesians 2:19-22; Hebrews 3:3-6; 10:21).

In our families we’re to build up this household, this family, this living temple of God. Until He reveals His new dwelling among us, and says of every person: “I shall be his God and he will be My son” (see Revelation 21:3,7).

Yours in Christ,
Scott Hahn, Ph.D.

http://www.salvationhistory.com/homily_helps

Assumption of Mary

The Assumption

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power. 

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven." 

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven. 

 

No Remains

There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith. 

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere. 

 

Complement to the Immaculate Conception

Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ. 

The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, "Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might." If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. 

Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin" (Wis. 1:4 NAB). 

But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19]. 

 

Mary’s Cooperation

Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory. 

All Christians believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say "yes" to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given. 

 

The Bible Only?

Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture. 

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15). 

Copied from
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

God Bless
Nathan

Conversation with Non-Catholic

Questioner:  You know, when you pray to Mary you are introducing a mediator between God and man and that goes against God  because He said that “there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.”

An adequate reply:  If that’s the way you feel then don’t you ever, ever ask me to pray for you ever again.  You see, the minute you ask me to pray for you in your time of need you are putting me between you and our one mediator, Jesus Christ.

What we Catholics are doing when praying to Mary is to ask her to pray to Jesus on our behalf in the same way as you would ask me to pray for you on your behalf.  When Paul spoke of the one mediator he introduced the subject by stating that it was good for us to pray for one another (1 Tim 2:1-5).  It is good for one member of the Body of Christ to pray for the well-being of another member of the Body of Christ and since not even (physical) death can separate us from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ (Rom 8:38-39) then even those members of the Body who have physically died are alive and well in heaven because Jesus tells us directly that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jabob is a God of the living implying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive(Matt 22:32).  And because death will not separate us from the Body of Christ means that those who have died in friendship with God are not only alive but that they are STILL members of the Body of Christ.

 

Questioner: But they’re dead.  They can’t hear your prayers.

Reply: What would be the point of asking for intercessory prayers if the people we are asking are not aware of us or of our prayers?  Well we can find that they ARE aware of us in Heb 12:1 where it says: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.”  Or in Luke 15:18 where Luke tells us that their “is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.”

We can see that the saints in heaven are not only alive just as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive but that they are indeed aware of what is happening here on earth.

And so ‘dead’ saints are alive in heaven, aware of what is happening on earth and can pray for our well-being just as we can pray for the well-being of others.

 

God Bless
Nathan

Holy Mary Mother of God

            Solemnity of Holy Mary,

Mother of God

(Jan 1^st)

Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinctpersons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the "Nestorian" church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.

Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that was bestowed upon Mary, the humble handmaid of the Lord.

Irenaeus
"The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
"[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).

Ephraim the Syrian
"Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God" (Songs of Praise 1:20 [A.D. 351]).

Athanasius
"The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God" (The Incarnation of the Word of God 8 [A.D. 365]).

Council of Ephesus
"We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).

Copy/pasted from:

www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god

God Bless
Nathan

Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Last week we looked at the reasons why the supposed evidence that Mary had other children after Jesus is, in the end, not very strong evidence at all.  So now let’s look at some Biblical basis’ for Mary’s perpetual virginity.  There seems to be quite a few verses that point to Mary’s perpetual virginity although the weight of the arguments are arguable. 

We find in Luke 2:41-51 that Jesus is found missing.  Joseph and Mary are frantic and search for him for three days and then find him in the Temple.  I find it odd that throughout those three days there is no mention of any siblings helping in the search for Jesus.
 
A second argument can be made by the fact that in Jewish society younger sons never gave public advice to an older brother, much less, the oldest son.  This would be very disrespectful.  And this is what seems to be happening in John 7:3-4 “So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing.  For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world”.”

A third argument is pretty evident at His actions on the cross.  Our Lord entrusted his mother to John.  That action makes no sense if Mary had other sons (John 19:26-27).  The social customs of the time would have made such an action unthinkable.

Lastly, we find that in Luke 1:34 Mary is surprised by the angel’s announcement that she will bear a son.  She was already betrothed, or to be married, and she was surprised that she is going to bear a son?  Why would she be surprised at that statement?  She answered that she does not know man.  You would think that Mary would just assume that her husband-to-be is going to father her a child.  She would only be surprised if she had vowed to never know a man.  Only after she questions the angel about her virginity does the angel explain that “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the holy thing which is born will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)  Only then does she seem to understand.

The descriptive term to “overshadow” gives the connotation of a man overtaking a woman, as the coming together of man and women.  In essence, Mary believes she is connected to God in a marital fashion.

After learning of Mary’s expectancy, Joseph was contemplating quietly divorcing and putting her away because he knew that she would be accused of adultery and the possibility of Mary being stoned to death was definitely present.  As he was contemplating his choices an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream and said to him: “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 1:20).  Thus he received confirmation that he was called to live his marriage in a completely special way. 

Therefore, we see that even though Mary was with child and he knew that the Child was not his, he still accepted Mary as his wife on the word of a powerful dream.  Is there any better reason to keep a chaste life when you know you are to marry God’s mother and raise His Son?

Another way of arguing the perpetual virginity is by looking at the typology of Mary as found in the OT. “A type is a person, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something to come later in time, either later in the Old Testament itself of in the New Testament. It is like a taste or hint of something that will be fulfilled or realized. The anti-type (New Testament event) is always greater than its type (shadow of an event in the Old Testament). And both are independent of each other.

“Types” are explained in Rom 5:14 and Heb 9:9, as a figure, 1 Cor 10:6 and 2 Thess 3:9 and 2Pet 2:6, as examples, 1 Cor 10:11 and Heb 11:19, as a type.

The Egyptian Exodus told in Hosea 11:1 is quoted exactly in Matt 2:15 when speaking of Jesus’ return to Israel from Egypt: “where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."”

What Matthew has done here is he took an historical event and interpreted it as a shadow of something greater to come in the future, which he sees as ‘fulfilled’ in the person of Jesus the Messiah.

Other examples of type/antitype pairs are:

A) Jonah in the belly of the of whale is a type of Christ in the tomb. For Jonah stayed in the belly for three days as did Christ stay buried for three days until His resurrection.

B) The manna in the desert, Ex 16:31, is the bread of life compared to its antitype the living bread of life, that is Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, Matt 26:26

We can see from these examples that the Old Testament writers as well as the New Testament writers wrote and used these kinds of connections to show the greatness of God…through His imagery, and interconnections woven throughout Scripture.

Let’s see if we can find a new antitype that fits-in with the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant type. The Ark of the Covenant contained the Ten Commandment tablets, a golden pot containing some of the manna that fell from the sky during the 40 years of wandering the deserts after their liberation from the Egyptians, and the rod of Aaron.

Now, when we look for another container holding something similar yet greater than these objects, we can’t help but notice how Mary, the mother of Jesus, fits that description very well.

The Ark contained the Ten Commandments, the Word of God written by the finger of God on stone tablets. In Mary contained the Word of God made flesh, God incarnate.

The Ark also contained a pot of the miraculous bread that fell from the sky to sustain the wandering Jews after their liberation. In Mary contained the bread of life giving us spiritual life instead of merely physical sustenance.

The Ark also contained the rod of Aaron, the proof of true priesthood. In Mary’s womb is the true priest. And the Ark is treated as such that one who touches it without proper reverence died (2 Sam 6:6-7). Pretty good incentive to refrain from improperly touching Mary huh?

And lastly we also find that where God has entered through Mary's virginal opening so too must that opening remain shut as seen in Ezekiel 44:1-2 " The man led me to the outer gate at the east side of the Temple area. The gate was closed, and the LORD said to me, "This gate will stay closed and will never be opened. No human being is allowed to use it, because I, the LORD God of Israel, have entered through it. It is to remain closed

Since there is no break in this belief of ever-virgin through Christian history up until a few decades ago, we need to acknowledge that the perpetual virginity of Mary to be a default position.  Therefore those against this precept need to prove otherwise not the other way around.  I believe I have discredited any ‘proof’ showing that Mary and Joseph were having marital relations after Jesus’ birth in last weeks leaflet and today  I believe I have shown that there are some verses that point to the ever-virginity of Mary.  To conclude, Mary was a virgin before the conception of Christ, during her pregnancy and after our Lord’s birth up to her last day on earth.  To accept anything different will need additional proofs to the contrary.

Did Jesus Have Brothers?

In St Paul’s letter to the Galatians we find Paul mentions that Jesus had a brother by the name of James.  Does this mean that Jesus’ mother did not remain a virgin after His birth, did Jesus have blood-related siblings?  Let’s answer that question.

 

In Aramaic or Hebrew, there is no separate word for cousin.  Therefore, the word brother was used for cousins as well as other close members of the family. As an example we find that in Gen 14:14 Lot is called Abraham’s brother although we know him to be his nephew.  In the jewish custom we find that the word brother has a broader use such as people joined in a cause to refer to them as kinsmen (ex: 42 bretheren of King Achaziah (2 Kings 10:13-14)).  Or to describe a friend as in 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 and 2 Sam 1:26.  In Amos 1:9 the word is used to describe an ally. 

 

Therefore, when we come up to verses which speak of the bretheren (or brothers) of Jesus we can correctly assume that His brothers are in effect close friends, fellow believers or even fellow citizens of His native town Nazareth.  Verses such as Matt 12:46 “As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his bretheren stood without, seeking to speak to him.” can easily be explained as Jesus’ mother and his childhood friends (or fellow Nazareens, or cousins).

 

I believe the difficulty comes when we find the verses that seem to specify brothers by name such as verses Mark 6:3 and Matt 13:55.  Both these verses seem to be relating the same incident.  Matt 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son?  Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude?”  This verse seems to suggest that Mary had other children by the name James, and Jude.  But if you look closely the author did not call these men Mary’s sons, this writer separated them from Mary and in doing so introduced the idea that these men were not Jesus’ biological brothers.  We find elsewhere in Matthew that Mary was the mother of James and Joseph but these men’s father was Zebedee.  You will see what I mean when you read Matt 27:56 which states: “Among whom was Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”  With this we find that at least James and Joseph (or Jose, its English equivalent) are the sons of Zebedee (Cleophas) and another Mary.  Therefore, we find that James and Joseph are not the biological brothers of Jesus.  The only reason to be called the bretheren of Jesus would be because they were childhood friends.  We can extrapolate that conclusion by studying John 19:25 which states: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene”.  We find that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had a ‘sister’ named Mary and more than likely these two were not siblings but were very close.

 

            About Simon nothing certain can be stated.  Out of the four men grouped together and named in Matt 13:55, we find three of them are definitely not the biological sons of Mary, Mother of Jesus.  Since these men were grouped together and two out of the four are not His brothers, we can safely and accurately say that the other two are not Jesus’ brother since to be as such Simon and Jude would have been introduced in a manner reflective of that fact. At the very least Simon and Jude would have been described in a different way from the other two.  All agree that if Joseph and James are not brothers of the Savior, the others are not.

 

To conclude, Mary was a virgin before the conception of Christ, during her pregnancy and after our Lord’s birth up to her last day on earth.

Mary: Mother of God

Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinctpersons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the "Nestorian" church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.

Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

 

Copied and pasted from:  http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-mother-of-god

The Immaculate Conception

 

The Marian doctrines are, for Fundamentalists, among the most bothersome of the Catholic Church’s teachings. In this tract we’ll examine briefly a Marian doctrine that Fundamentalist writers frequently object to—the Immaculate Conception.

It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means 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. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind.Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Fundamentalists’ Objections

Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.

Copied/pasted from:http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption