Anyone know of Dr. James White?

[Reformed1]

Compare that with these statements.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

Manny,

Please pick a year and tell me when a belief in the IC became required of the Catholic faithful. I am not interested in debating the historocity of the dogma or the theological soundness of the belief, I just want to know the year in which it became binding.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny,

Please pick a year and tell me when a belief in the IC became required of the Catholic faithful. I am not interested in debating the historocity of the dogma or the theological soundness of the belief, I just want to know the year in which it became binding.

I did. June 12, 1854. Pope Pius IX declare that Mary was born without the stains of sins. He affirm this base on the bishops concerning Mary, and the ECF.

Just as the Trinity was not officially declared until 325 A.D in the Council of Nicea. I hate repeating myself, so the Church through her authority granted by God declare Mary to be Immaculately Conceived without sin.

((continue))

 

[Reformed1]

I did. June 12, 1854. Pope Pius IX declare that Mary was born without the stains of sins. He affirm this base on the bishops concerning Mary, and the ECF.

Just as the Trinity was not officially declared until 325 A.D in the Council of Nicea. I hate repeating myself, so the Church through her authority granted by God declare Mary to be Immaculately Conceived without sin.

((continue))

Thank you.

So before 1854, the belief in the IC wasn’t binding upon the conscience of faithful catholics right?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Pope Pius IX reasons for proclaiming that Mary is the Immaculate Conception is based on the Following;

Sacred Scripture;

Genesis 3:15

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: “and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel” (Genesis 3:15). The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.

Luke 1:28

The salutation of the angel Gabriel – chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.

Other texts

From the texts Proverbs 8 and Ecclesiasticus 24 (which exalt the Wisdom of God and which in the liturgy are applied to Mary, the most beautiful work of God’s Wisdom), or from the Canticle of Canticles (4:7, “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee”), no theological conclusion can be drawn. These passages, applied to the Mother of God, may be readily understood by those who know the privilege of Mary, but do not avail to prove the doctrine dogmatically, and are therefore omitted from the Constitution “Ineffabilis Deus”. For the theologian it is a matter of conscience not to take an extreme position by applying to a creature texts which might imply the prerogatives of God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Traditions:

In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.
Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ’s passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary’s soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, “In Luc. hom. xvii”).
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary’s soul (Epistle 259).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also “In Matt.”, hom. 4).
But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science. If we were to attempt to set forth the full doctrine of the Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which includes particularly the implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages. In the testimony of the Fathers two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22).

Mary as the second Eve

This celebrated comparison between Eve, while yet immaculate and incorrupt – that is to say, not subject to original sin – and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:

Justin (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100),
Irenaeus (Contra Haereses, III, xxii, 4),
Tertullian (De carne Christi, xvii),
Julius Firm cus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses, xii, 29),
Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).

The absolute purity of Mary

Patristic writings on Mary’s purity abound.

The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, “Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me”);
Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings (“Hom. i in diversa”);
Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace (“Nom. viii de Natali Domini”);

 

[Mannyfit75]

Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God (“Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.”).
In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin “except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned” (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).
Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, “Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.”);
it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, “Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.”, I, 3);
she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, “Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.”, ii).
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary’s grace and sanctity: “Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity …, alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . … flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate” (“Precationes ad Deiparam” in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate (“Carmina Nisibena”).
Jacob of Sarug says that “the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary”. It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin (“the sentence against Adam and Eve”) at the Annunciation.

Source: newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

[Mannyfit75]

St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the “conceptio carnis” was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, “Mari SS. Vita”, Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the “Revelations” of Catherine Emmerich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary.

From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary’s immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.

The Conception of St. John the Baptist

A comparison with the conception of Christ and that of St. John may serve to light both on the dogma and on the reasons which led the Greeks to celebrate at an early date the Feast of the Conception of Mary.

The conception of the Mother of God was beyond all comparison more noble than that of St. John the Baptist, whilst it was immeasurably beneath that of her Divine Son.
The soul of the precursor was not preserved immaculate at its union with the body, but was sanctified either shortly after conception from a previous state of sin, or through the presence of Jesus at the Visitation.
Our Lord, being conceived by the Holy Ghost, was, by virtue of his miraculous conception, ipso facto free from the taint of original sin.
Of these three conceptions the Church celebrates feasts. The Orientals have a Feast of the Conception of St. John the Baptist (23 September), which dates back to the fifth century, is thus older than the Feast of the Conception of Mary, and, during the Middle Ages, was kept also by many Western dioceses on 24 September. The Conception of Mary is celebrated by the Latins on 8 December; by the Orientals on 9 December; the Conception of Christ has its feast in the universal calendar on 25 March. In celebrating the feast of Mary’s Conception the Greeks of old did not consider the theological distinction of the active and the passive conceptions, which was indeed unknown to them. They did not think it absurd to celebrate a conception which was not immaculate, as we see from the Feast of the Conception of St. John. They solemnized the Conception of Mary, perhaps because, according to the “Proto-evangelium” of St. James, it was preceded by miraculous events (the apparition of an angel to Joachim, etc.), similar to those which preceded the conception of St. John, and that of our Lord Himself. Their object was less the purity of the conception than the holiness and heavenly mission of the person conceived. In the Office of 9 December, however, Mary, from the time of her conception, is called beautiful, pure, holy, just, etc., terms never used in the Office of 23 September (sc. of St. John the Baptist). The analogy of St. John’s sanctification may have given rise to the Feast of the Conception of Mary. If it was necessary that the precursor of the Lord should be so pure and “filled with the Holy Ghost” even from his mother’s womb, such a purity was assuredly not less befitting His Mother. The moment of St. John’s sanctification is by later writers thought to be the Visitation (“the infant leaped in her womb”), but the angel’s words (Luke 1:15) seem to indicate a sanctification at the conception. This would render the origin of Mary more similar to that of John. And if the Conception of John had its feast, why not that of Mary?

 

[Mannyfit75]

PROOF FROM REASON
There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on earth to destroy. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-Anselmus (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence; God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her. Again it is remarked that a peculiar privilege was granted to the prophet Jeremiah and to St. John the Baptist. They were sanctified in their mother’s womb, because by their preaching they had a special share in the work of preparing the way for Christ. Consequently some much higher prerogative is due to Mary. (A treatise of P. Marchant, claiming for St. Joseph also the privilege of St. John, was placed on the Index in 1833.) Scotus says that “the perfect Mediator must, in some one case, have done the work of mediation most perfectly, which would not be unless there was some one person at least, in whose regard the wrath of God was anticipated and not merely appeased.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

The source, my fellow Christians is the newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

[Mannyfit75]

Reformed1,

In my opinion, the reason why I believe that Mary is Immaculate is because of Jesus Christ.

We both admit that Jesus throughout his lifetime, did not sin. When Mary said to the angel, “Be it done onto me according to your word.” Mary became the Mother of God, Jesus, who is True God, and True Man.

I like to note that declaring Mary as the Mother of God does not imply that she is the Mother of God, the Father. No no. She is the Mother of God, the Son.

This discussion is not about the title of Mother of God. Anyways, Jesus became flesh because Mary accepted God’s will to be the Mother of the Messiah.

There is a distinct parallel between the Ark of the Covenant of the OT, and Mary in the NT.

Consider similiars. I don’t expect you to believe this Catholic interpretation.

The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex 25:10)

compare that to this

The Word became Flesh (John 1)

The Ark carried the Word of God (Deut 10:1) The Ark carried the Old Covenant compared that to this “Mary carried the Word of God” (Lk 2:38) Mary carried the New Covenant

David says “Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9) compare that to this Elizabeth says “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me” (Lk 1:43) Note, Mary is pregnant with Jesus in her womb.

When the Ark returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam 6:14) compare that to this, “The baby leaped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary came into Elizabeth’s presence carrying Jesus in her womb.” (Lk 2 38)

There I have set the ark in which is the covenant of the Lord that he made with his people Israel (2Ch 6:11) compare that to this, "Jesus is the new Covenant and he is in Mary’s womb, which makes Mary the ark of the New Covenant. Elizabeth’s husband Zachariah said "He has remembered his holy covenant (Lk 1:72) …The cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood (Lk 22:20)

((continue))

 

[Redbandito]

Redbandito,

When did the doctrine of the immaculate conception become binding on Catholics?

All doctrines are “binding” on Catholics whether dogmatically defined or not. The Church has the authority to even impose disciplines, such as fasting on Fridays during lent. The fact that this is not an infallible doctrine does not make it any less “binding” on the faithful.

 

[Redbandito]

When exactly were the prophets infallible? Please be very specific and try to avoid ambiguity.

What does it mean to be “universally believed”?

What do you mean when? When the prophets spoke for God they were infallible, meaning uncapable of error. If they spoke in error, they were not true prophets (Dt 18:18-22).

What do you think it means?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Joshua summoned the twelve men from the Israelite, whom he had appointed, one from each tribe. Joshua said to them “Pass on before the ark of the Lord your God.” (Josh 4:4) There were 12 stones like the 12 stars in Rev… compared to "The ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; … 12 :1 A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman …and on her head a crown of twelve stars. (Rev 11:19) representing the tribes of Israel.

In Joshua Chapter 6, the Israelites circle Jerico with the Ark of the Covenant and blowing horns for seven days before their victory compared that to "Revelation Chapter 8-11 before the introduction the Ark of the covenant (Chapter 12) the angels blow seven trumpets to herold the victory over Satan.

The Ark of the Lord is a blessing to the house (2 Sam 6:11) to Mary goes into the hills and blesses Elizabeth’s house (Lk 2 38)

The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13) Mary is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Mat 2:14)

The Ark disappears (Jer 3:16) never to return until the New Testament Revelation story The Ark reappears as a lady who bears a son who is seated at the right hand of God . Her children are Christians. (Rev 11:19)

It will not be like the covenant that I made…that they broke though I was their husband (Jer 31:31) The Holy spirit shall overshadow you; therefore the son to be born to you …will be called the Son of God (Lk 1:35) (The Holy Spirit was Mary’s spouse)

These verse is not a coincident. The Gospels Writers were aware that the NT fulfilled the OT, and since Jesus is pure, God will that his mother would be pure. God saved Mary by perceiving her from the stains of sin. Mary by herself cannot save. That is why in Luke, Mary said, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour My soul doth magnify the Lord."

Mary is the handmaid of the Lord, and has done God’s divine will. For without her consent, Jesus would not be born. I do not see God, the Father permit that his son, Jesus would have a sinner as a mother. In the OT, Ark is pure. Mary is a type of Ark… and I firmly believe that she is conceived without sin.

 

[Reformed1]

Manny,

I don’t think I have once questioned the legitamacy of the IC, I just wanted to know when it became binding on catholics.

You said earlier that the year of 1854 is when the belief became binding upon the conscience of catholics.

So, in 1853 Catholics weren’t required to believe in the IC, right?

 

[Reformed1]

All doctrines are “binding” on Catholics whether dogmatically defined or not. The Church has the authority to even impose disciplines, such as fasting on Fridays during lent. The fact that this is not an infallible doctrine does not make it any less “binding” on the faithful.

Okay, so a Christian living in 35 AD was reqired to believe in the IC.

 

[Reformed1]

What do you mean when? When the prophets spoke for God they were infallible, meaning uncapable of error. If they spoke in error, they were not true prophets (Dt 18:18-22).

What do you think it means?

When were they speaking for God?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny,

I don’t think I have once questioned the legitamacy of the IC, I just wanted to know when it became binding on catholics.

You said earlier that the year of 1854 is when the belief became binding upon the conscience of catholics.

So, in 1853 Catholics weren’t required to believe in the IC, right?

It was not well know at the time. Though it was a common belief.

A Catholic is free to believe as long as it as it isn’t contrary to the teachings of the Church.

 

[Reformed1]

It was not well know at the time. Though it was a common belief.

A Catholic is free to believe as long as it as it isn’t contrary to the teachings of the Church.

I agree that there is a good bit of history behind the IC.

I think you are saying that in 1853 and years prior, a faithful Catholic was not bound to believe the IC but after 1852 you guys are bound to accept the teaching.

This is all I was saying in post 62.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I agree that their is a good bit of history behind the IC.

I think you are saying that in 1853 and years prior, a faithful Catholic was not bound to believe the IC but after 1852 you guys are bound to accept the teaching.

This is all I was saying in post 62.

Yes, it wasn’t binding. Once a dogma is declared by the Holy See, it becomes permanent, unchanging. Just as Jesus said to Peter, “whatever you bound on earth, shall be bound in heaven.”

 

[Reformed1]

Yes, it wasn’t binding. Once a dogma is declared by the Holy See, it becomes permanent, unchanging. Just as Jesus said to Peter, “whatever you bound on earth, shall be bound in heaven.”

Thanks

I may have said it poorly, but this is the point I was trying to make in post 62. Simply that as your theology develops some things become binding that once were not.