In a recent video released by Catholic Answers, Is There Biblical Proof for the Immaculate Conception? Karlo Broussard attempts to provide some biblical evidence for the Immaculate Conception:
Let us review his arguments:
Genesis 3:15
To dispel the comments by Broussard on this verse and its alleged relationship to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, it should be enough to quote from Ludwig Ott when he discusses the purported biblical proof of the dogma:
α) Gn. 3:15 (Protoevangelium): Inimicitas ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius; ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius. The translation of these words, according to the original text, is: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. He (the seed of the woman) shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel.”
The literal sense of the passage is possibly the following: Between Satan and his followers on the one hand, and Eve and her posterity on the other hand, there is to be constant moral warfare. The posterity of Eve will achieve a complete and final victory over Satan and his followers, even if it is wounded in the struggle. The posterity of Eve includes the Messias, in whose power humanity will win a victory over Satan. Thus the passage is indirectly messianic. Cf. D 2123.
The seed of the woman was understood as referring to the Redeemer (the αὐτός of the Septuagint), and thus the Mother of the Redeemer came to be seen in the woman. Since the second century this direct messianic-marian interpretation has been expounded by individual Fathers, for example, St. Irenaeus, St. Epiphanius, Isidor of Pelusium, St. Cyprian, the author of the Epistola ad amicum aegrotum, St. Leo the Great. However, it is not found in the writings of the majority of the Fathers, among them the great teachers of the East and West. According to this interpretation, Mary stands with Christ in a perfect and victorious enmity towards Satan and his following. Many of the later scholastics and a great many modern theologians argue, in the light of this interpretation of the Proloevangelium that: Mary’s victory over Satan would not have been perfect, if she had ever been under his dominion. Consequently she must have entered this world without the stain of original sin.
The Bull “Ineffabilis” approves of this messianic-marianic interpretation. It draws from it the inference that Mary, in consequence of her intimate association with Christ, “with Him and through Him had eternal enmity towards the poisonous serpent, triumphed in the most complete fashion over him, and crushed its head with her immaculate foot.” The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage. It must also be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma. (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 200)
"Woman" being applied to Mary
Firstly, it should be noted that Mary is not the only person called "woman" (γυνη) in the Gospel of John. The woman of Samaria is also called by this term in John 4:21:
Jesus saith unto her, Woman (γυναι), believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Using the strained interpretation (eisegesis, really) of Broussard and other Catholic apologists, this “proves” that the Samaritan woman is the “New Eve” just like Mary.
Why did Jesus refer to Mary as “woman” in John 2:4 and 19:26? As with episodes in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is establishing an eschatological family, one based, not on biological but spiritual ties with one another (cf. Matt 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21; 11:27-28). As Eric Svendsen noted:
In the case of women with who he is particularly close, he sometimes uses the woman’s proper name. In Luke 10:41 he refers to “Martha” (cf. John 11:5 which tells us that “Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus”). In John 20:16 he refers to Mary Magdalene by name. In other words, when there is a special relationship between Jesus and a woman who is a known disciple, he often uses more personal address. The title “woman,” by contrast, seems to be used to establish distance between Jesus and the other party. One might expect, then, that had Jesus intended to convey and intimate relationship with his mother—one that was unencumbered by distance—he would have chosen “mother” or “Mary” or the like. Instead, he uses an address that is polite but distancing. Indeed, the fact that Jesus never once in all the gospels calls Mary by the title “mother” indicates not only that there is no special emphasis on Mary's physical motherhood, but may also indicate something much more significant; namely, that Mary’s physical motherhood is quite intentionally downplayed. (Eric D. Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism [Amityville, N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2001], 183)
In an endnote for the above (p. 317 n. 58), Svendsen noted the following on the use of personal names and “woman”:
In the case of John 20:15-16, Jesus first calls Mary Magdalene “woman” (v. 15); then “Mary” (v. 16). The first address (“woman”) seems to be said with the intent of preventing Mary from recognizing him immediately (c. Luke 24:16; “they were kept from recognizing him”), and to give the impression that she is speaking with a stranger (viz., the gardener). The second address (“Mary”) is clearly intended to close the distance and reestablish the intimacy that Mary once enjoyed with Jesus.
Luke 1:28 and κεχαριτωμενη
While Broussard did not raise this verse, it is the most popular text Catholic apologists cite in support of the Immaculate Conception. For a full discussion, see:
Finally, this is not the first time Catholic Answers has done a weak job at attempting to provide support for this dogma. Broussard’s mentor and fellow apologist at Catholic Answers, Tim Staples, embarrassed himself on the topic in his 2015 book, Behold your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines. See my article:
On Catholic Answers' weak work on "Mormonism," see:
There is no meaningful biblical and even early patristic evidence for the Immaculate Conception. It is a tradition of men that should be rejected.
