Is The Immaculate Conception Really Biblical? w/ William Albrecht & Fr. Christiaan Kappas

Protestants often accuse Catholics of believing unbiblical dogmas, and while the Church draws from Tradition AND Scripture, often Protestants miss important scriptural information that supports the Catholic side. Mary's Immaculate Conception is not only in line with Scripture, but it is in fact POINTED to indirectly throughout scripture. William dismantles the "all have sinned" therefore Mary sinned Scriptural argument.

Sponsors:

[adisonransley]

I’d disagree. The Bible clearly says “through Adam all sin”. Genuinely curious how one gets around that? Also David said that he was conceived in sin, inferring that sin is there from birth..

[jimdaily]

Mary was a virgin and she was without stain as in without having sex not that she was sinless. When you have to go through well Jesus was sinless this way and Mary was sinless that way and she this and that. The scripture and Jesus story is so simple anyone can understand it and this kind of argument where you basically take something that is so plainly said and try to twist it into something for your own good that's what catholics do with this subject. God made his story and his word easy to read and know. How much more plain could Paul have been when he said all people should he have gone on a tyrade and listed every single person he knew and included everyone on earth's name under that at the time? What about the people who weren't born yet? Is that then an argument? Stop with this it isn't healthy for Christians for you to try and spread these lies about Mary or our book. Everyone is sinful except Jesus period if not then what is so special about Jesus if Mary is also sinless she could've saved us. That's the point when you give Mary the sinless pass you are actually saying hey Jesus what you did wasn't that impressive look this human did it too. The part where you say well she was sinless in a different way is totally bs. Either she had sin at one time or she didn't. When they say well it was through grace well yea you're right we are have sinned a d fallen short and through Jesus grace we are forgiven so I guess all of us are immaculent then? This is the kind of word salad and utter non sense these guys have to speak about to defend this absurd idea.

[bern]

Can a person who has sinned be 'full of grace'?

[rreffell]

As someone who is not Catholic but came from a Protestant church, learning a devotion to Mary is only making me a better Christian. Praying the is changing my life for the better📿. Holy Mary mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

[adedaporh]

Notice how from 3:02 after the host presses him on why this doctrine is not clearly addressed in the Bible, he starts talking about church tradition lol

[VarynDEEt]

I feel like it’s obvious that in Romans 3:23, Jesus is not included in the “all” that have sinned. Paul’s talking about the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Why would Paul include Jesus in that? Does Jesus need to have faith in Himself in order to have righteousness with God? That makes no sense. It’s clear that he’s talking about sinful mankind.

[Justas]

Paul makes no exception for Mary. Infants have not sinned because they can't sin.

[gunsgalore]

Don't get me wrong, there were a lot of good points in this video. But they were definitely not helpful for demonstrating the sinfulness of Mary. They did explain a little bit about why Mary COULD be sinless, but they didn't explain why she WAS.

[TheVidsmasters]

How can Mary be without sin AND need a savior? Luke 1:47 (the song of Mary)

[kenid]

BEWARE of the yeast of ROME....pure sophistry....loads of words, twists and turns until they put their yoke round your neck.

[BornAgainRN]

Bringing up the complete absence of neither Jesus, the apostles, nor any of the NT writers not mentioning Mary being sinless like they did with Jesus on multiple occasions - both explicitly & implicitly - is a valid argument. If the first century church revered & venerated Mary the way the Roman Catholic Church does today, there would be no way even a single NT writer would not mention this. Look how many prayers are devoted to Mary, such as the "Hail! Mary" (including 10 Hail Mary's for every 1 Our Father). Add that to the first few century Christian writers being completely silent to her Immaculate Conception, which is not limited to her conception, but remaining sinless her entire life. Yet, we see just the opposite that even Doctors of the Church, such as Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, and Chrysostom denied the Immaculate Conception. Even Dr. Robert Sungenis (a Catholic apologist, author, & filmmaker) has stated: "the truth is these Fathers did not hold to the complete doctrine of the Immaculate Conception that was proclaimed in 1854.”

[robin]

Let me explain the Immaculate Conception when Mary was graced by Jesus to be free of original sin that everyone inherits from Adam’s sin. Eve, who ate the forbidden fruit, was the first mother of humanity, but Mary is the new Eve who brought forth the Savior to redeem us from our sins. Mary was also graced to live in the Divine Will of her Son without committing sin. So when the Angel Gabriel said she was full of grace, so she was, so she could hold the Savior in her womb for nine months.

[BornAgainRN]

When the apostle Paul states, "All have sinned" (Romans 3:23), the context is that “both Jews & Gentiles are ALL under sin” (v.9), who being justified by His grace, “God passed over the sins previously committed” (v.25). Paul is addressing Jews & Gentiles who have inherited the Original sin passed down from Adam to mankind: "death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those WHO HAD NOT SINNED in the likeness of the offense of Adam" (Romans 5:14). So, Paul is not talking about "all" committing PERSONAL sin, as Psalm 58:3 illustrates: “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, SPEAKING LIES.” Infants birthed from the womb do not have the capability of lying, but they eventually will BECAUSE they were CONCEIVED in sin (Psalm 51:5).

Also, Jesus' nature wasn't STRICTLY Divine. That is the heresy of Docetism. Jesus also had a HUMAN nature. So, William stating that the difference between Jesus & Mary (allegedly) being sinless had to do with them not having the same nature is only partially true. The actual difference is that unlike Jesus who was conceived by the sinLESS God the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35-36), Mary was conceived by a sinFUL human father, which sin was passed down through to her. But Jesus didn't have a human father for sin to be passed down to. So, sin would have bypassed Jesus, because His Father was God, which is another reason why the Messiah needed to be God (Isaiah 9:6, cf. Isaiah 7:14).

When Paul said "ALL have sinned, " this is why it includes Mary, but not Jesus.

[huntsman]

Matt, I feel like you're more responsible than this level of defense. You know it's weak.

[Userdavid-pzqm]

Many saints of the earlier church refused to call Mary sinless, and strongly implied otherwise. Now, many others of them didn't go that route, and only their opinion is in Sacred Tradition. Please understand me here: that is a serious epistemic problem for me. If the Magisterium can just go with one traditional route, and say the other saints that they even canonized was wrong with rhat issue, I must defer to Scripture.

[johnbaker]

Anyone else find the person rocking back and forth on his phone horribly distracting? Maybe it’s my OCD…

[bendean]

Why is it every time we try to make more of Mary we seem to make less of Christ?

[CatholicChristian]

Pavone, whose organization is headquartered in Titusville, Florida. also said that some bishops in the Church do not want to "offend" powerful Democrats and members of Congress — which is why they purposefully soften their pro-life message.

[chriswalls]

It's not that God picked Mary because yes she sinned that's not why he picked her she was a virgin Joseph was not around then read luke chapter 1 verse 34

[BeTheIron]

One second: None of the Early Church Fathers this part of Romans to show that Mary was sinful!
A few seconds later: "Well while it is true that the church fathers did not see the woman in Revelation as Mary, we can talk about that."
I love y'all, but I'm sorry This just doesn't seem fair to at some moments point to the church fathers for the foundational assertion of your claims truthfulness, and at a different point, speak about disagreeing with the interpretation of the church fathers in order to use a specific text to prove your dogmatic claim. There are other claims which you can make that I think would be far more interesting, or potentially even convincing, but please have a more consistent basis for your claims as they relate to the church fathers.
God bless you all!