Demonstrating Immaculate Conception Straight from the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter SlowerAndSlower
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You’re missing the point here, and that is that the dogma can be demonstrated “STRAIGHT FROM THE BIBLE”! Even Catholic scholars admit this cannot be done, yet you seem to think that the Op is smarter than those who have examined this before.
Click to expand...
Catholic scholars mean that it can not be demonstrated explicitly. That is what I already posted. However, it is found (or demonstrated) in the Bible for Catholics who have Tradition (and a Divine Religion interpreting the Bible.) If it couldn’t be found in the Bible at all, then we would not have the demonstrations posted by the OP. But it is and we do. 🙂

You are missing the point. The OP is saying that although not found explicitly, it is nevertheless implied and alluded to in the Bible. It may not be convincing to non-Catholics, but EVERYTHING in the bible is in need of interpretation, even the obvious. Otherwise we wouldn’t have so-called Christians who don’t believe in Baptism, and yet it is EXPLICITLY taught in the Bible.

Everything is up for interpretation, no matter how explicit, no matter how oblique.
 
40.png
AmbroseSJ:
Catholic scholars mean that it can not be demonstrated explicitly. That is what I already posted. However, it is found (or demonstrated) in the Bible for Catholics who have Tradition (and a Divine Religion interpreting the Bible.) If it couldn’t be found in the Bible at all, then we would not have the demonstrations posted by the OP. But it is and we do.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying that the topic is really “Demonstrating the Implied and Alluded to Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception Straight from the Bible as explained by Tradition and Infallible Dogmatic Teaching”? Silly me! And here I thought words had meaning!
You are missing the point. The OP is saying that although not found explicitly, it is nevertheless implied and alluded to in the Bible. It may not be convincing to non-Catholics, but EVERYTHING in the bible is in need of interpretation, even the obvious. Otherwise we wouldn’t have so-called Christians who don’t believe in Baptism, and yet it is EXPLICITLY taught in the Bible.
Click to expand...
I sure hope you’re not comparing the immaculate conception with Baptism. I note that the Op made a change from the original post. Compare this -
Demonstrating
The Immaculate Conception
Straight From the Bible!
Dedicated to the 900 million kids killed over the last 20 years.
Click to expand...
with this -
A Biblical Demonstration from Mary’s Magnificat
of the Plausibility of the Immaculate Conception
Dedicated to the 900 million kids killed over the last 20 years.
Click to expand...
That certainly changes the discussion (I would still highly recommend that the Op NOT rely on any particular English translation to make a point).
Everything is up for interpretation, no matter how explicit, no matter how oblique.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to understand something without an “infallible” interpreter. I’m sure you would feel that you have a good understanding of the CCC (or at least the parts you’ve read), but aren’t they up for interpretation as well? Aren’t all documents (like “Ineffabilis Deus”) up for interpretation, or do you somehow have an infallible understanding of church documents?
 
I agree, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to understand something without an “infallible” interpreter. I’m sure you would feel that you have a good understanding of the CCC (or at least the parts you’ve read), but aren’t they up for interpretation as well? Aren’t all documents (like “Ineffabilis Deus”) up for interpretation, or do you somehow have an infallible understanding of church documents?
Click to expand...
Not really. The Bible is a special case. Why? Because it was not written as a catechism or a declaration of some ONE doctrine. Ineffabilis Deus is addressed to one theological question, and articulates it quite well to any reader, be he a believer or not. The Bible was not written to teach all of the Church’s doctrines. There were living breathing teachers who were commissioned by Jesus Christ for that.
 
40.png
AmbroseSJ:
Not really. The Bible is a special case. Why? Because it was not written as a catechism or a declaration of some ONE doctrine. Ineffabilis Deus is addressed to one theological question, and articulates it quite well to any reader, be he a believer or not. The Bible was not written to teach all of the Church’s doctrines. There were living breathing teachers who were commissioned by Jesus Christ for that.
Click to expand...
So church documents like Ineffabilis Deus are not subject to interpretation because they address one theological topic clearly, while the Scriptures require an “infallible” interpreter? Interesting! So tell me, Vatican II says that Scripture is without error (I would say inerrant, but that’s just me) - is that ALL of Scripture, or just the Scripture that talks about salvation? I’ve heard it both ways from different Catholics, both relying on the exact same church documents (see CCC #107 and Dei Verbum 11). Out of curiousity, why do you think uninspired men (such as those who wrote the church documents) are clearer in their writings than the God-inspired authors of Scripture?
 
Out of curiousity, why do you think uninspired men (such as those who wrote the church documents) are clearer in their writings than the God-inspired authors of Scripture?
Click to expand...
Church documents ARE inspired! That’s because they are guided by the same Holy Spirit that guided the writers of Scripture.

But why are they clearer? It’s because they address a specific teaching in the language of our own time. I don’t refer to the Latin of the document, but rather the current language or theology of the topic at hand. They are as clear to us as St. Paul was to his Corinthians. They had a history together, personally and through the Spirit.

But 2000 years later, we need a Divine interpreter to understand correctly the intent, the drift, and the underlying theology, meaning and/or morality of the Scripture. That’s not to say that much of what we read is not self evident. But that is why the first Protestants mistakenly thought they had no need of a Divine Interpreter. I might as well include all of the heretics of history as well, since all heresy and schism has its roots in doubting the need for a Divine Interpreter/authority.
 
40.png
AmbroseSJ:
Church documents ARE inspired! That’s because they are guided by the same Holy Spirit that guided the writers of Scripture.
Click to expand...
What?! Are you saying they’re inspired the same way the Scriptures were inspired? If so, then why aren’t things like Dei Verbum and Ineffabilis Deus part of the canon? If they’re just as inspired as Luke, Romans, Hebrews, etc…, why not add them to the canon? On the other hand, if they’re not the same as Scripture, then my point is still valid.
But why are they clearer? It’s because they address a specific teaching in the language of our own time. I don’t refer to the Latin of the document, but rather the current language or theology of the topic at hand. They are as clear to us as St. Paul was to his Corinthians. They had a history together, personally and through the Spirit.
Click to expand...
Now it sounds like you’re saying that the Corinthians understood Paul’s letter to them just as clearly as you understand Ineffabilis Deus and Dei Verbum. If that’s true, then why can’t we understand the letters to the Corinthians as easily as they did (keeping in mind the times they lived in)?
But 2000 years later, we need a Divine interpreter to understand correctly the intent, the drift, and the underlying theology, meaning and/or morality of the Scripture. That’s not to say that much of what we read is not self evident. But that is why the first Protestants mistakenly thought they had no need of a Divine Interpreter. I might as well include all of the heretics of history as well, since all heresy and schism has its roots in doubting the need for a Divine Interpreter/authority.
Click to expand...
And still my question about conflicting interpretations by church authorities goes unanswered (reference CCC #107 and whether all of Scripture is free of error (I would say inerrant), or just the Scriptures that deal with salvation). You seem to indicate you understand Dei Verbum. What do you say about the inerrancy of Scripture?

I notice we seem to have strayed off topic (sorry about that). You may want to start a new thread on the inspiration of church documents.
 
What?! Are you saying they’re inspired the same way the Scriptures were inspired? If so, then why aren’t things like Dei Verbum and Ineffabilis Deus part of the canon? If they’re just as inspired as Luke, Romans, Hebrews, etc…, why not add them to the canon? On the other hand, if they’re not the same as Scripture, then my point is still valid.
Click to expand...
The Apostles and Evangelists writing are special (as I said) because they contain the Deposit of Faith. But NOT just the Sacred Scriptures. The Church and her Tradition are also protectors of this Deposit of Faith. This Deposit of Faith was complete at the death of the last Apostle. The Church today expounds on that Deposit of Faith, protected from error (just as the Scriptures) by the Holy Spirit. So yes, I am saying that the Church today is inspired in the same way as the Scriptures were. You can thereby see how Important the Church is. Although governed by frail men, it is Founded, and ruled over by Jesus Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit. As St. Augustine said, without the Church, I would never have believed the Scriptures.

Getting us back on track, the IC is found (although obliquely) in the Sacred Scriptures. It was for our time that the Church would declare this doctrine explicitly. But to Catholics, the Church IS like the Scriptures, and even more like a continuation of the Acts of the Apostles. It is the Church which validates the Scriptures, and it is the Scriptures which validates the Church. Both are complementary. At one time there was ONLY the Church and of course the OT. But in our latter day, we have the NT and the Church.
 
40.png
AmbroseSJ:
The Apostles and Evangelists writing are special (as I said) because they contain the Deposit of Faith. But NOT just the Sacred Scriptures. The Church and her Tradition are also protectors of this Deposit of Faith. This Deposit of Faith was complete at the death of the last Apostle. The Church today expounds on that Deposit of Faith, protected from error (just as the Scriptures) by the Holy Spirit. So yes, I am saying that the Church today is inspired in the same way as the Scriptures were. You can thereby see how Important the Church is. Although governed by frail men, it is Founded, and ruled over by Jesus Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit. As St. Augustine said, without the Church, I would never have believed the Scriptures.

Getting us back on track, the IC is found (although obliquely) in the Sacred Scriptures. It was for our time that the Church would declare this doctrine explicitly. But to Catholics, the Church IS like the Scriptures, and even more like a continuation of the Acts of the Apostles. It is the Church which validates the Scriptures, and it is the Scriptures which validates the Church. Both are complementary. At one time there was ONLY the Church and of course the OT. But in our latter day, we have the NT and the Church.
Click to expand...
So Scripture and church documents like Ineffabilis Deus are the same, but different? I’d be very curious to see what the official teaching of the church is on this subject (perhaps you could enlighten us)! And still my question about conflicting interpretations by church authorities continues to be ignored (reference CCC #107 and whether all of Scripture is free of error (I would say inerrant), or just the Scriptures that deal with salvation). You seem to indicate you understand Dei Verbum. What do you say about the inerrancy of Scripture?

To get back on track (and the original topic as established by the Op), it is impossible to demonstrate the IC straight from the Bible. This can ONLY be demonstrated when other authorities (ie. tradition and “infallible” declarations) are imported into the discussion.
 
To get back on track (and the original topic as established by the Op), it is impossible to demonstrate the IC straight from the Bible. This can ONLY be demonstrated when other authorities (ie. tradition and “infallible” declarations) are imported into the discussion.
Click to expand...
But isn’t that true of most doctrines?
 
40.png
AmbroseSJ:
Like the Doctrine of the Trinity for example, or the Hypostatic Union of the human and Divine natures in Jesus Christ?
Click to expand...
I’ve been through this discussion before on another thread. Funny thing is, that even after I demonstrated all the Scriptures that prove one God in three persons (the Trinity), I was still informed that I couldn’t understand it without the teaching of the church. I don’t find anything even remotely similar for ANY of the Marian dogmas (including the IC, which is the topic of this particular thread).
 
Cachonga said:
I’ve been through this discussion before on another thread. Funny thing is, that even after I demonstrated all the Scriptures that prove one God in three persons (the Trinity), I was still informed that I couldn’t understand it without the teaching of the church. I don’t find anything even remotely similar for ANY of the Marian dogmas (including the IC, which is the topic of this particular thread).
Click to expand...
I’m sure your proofs were mere allusions and implications, not explicit doctrinal teachings, just as they are for the IC. I will grant that the allusions and implications are closer to the surface than with the IC, but nevertheless, it is still Tradition that illuminates all of these doctrines. If you can be objective, you can also be SURE that if the Reformation occurred before these doctrines were defined and accepted by all Christians, we would be having the same argument about the nature of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Trinity not being in the Bible. Indeed the “protoprotestants” the Arians, did make this very argument!
 
40.png
AmbroseSJ:
I’m sure your proofs were mere allusions and implications, not explicit doctrinal teachings, just as they are for the IC. I will grant that the allusions and implications are closer to the surface than with the IC, but nevertheless, it is still Tradition that illuminates all of these doctrines. If you can be objective, you can also be SURE that if the Reformation occurred before these doctrines were defined and accepted by all Christians, we would be having the same argument about the nature of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Trinity not being in the Bible. Indeed the “protoprotestants” the Arians, did make this very argument!
Click to expand...
I would refer you to “The Forgotten Trinity” by James White, a book highly recommended and endorsed by a Jesuit priest, Mitch Pacwa. I have shown in another thread why I believe in the Trinity from the Scriptures alone. Of course, that is not the topic of this thread.

As far as the topic of this thread goes, I still have not been shown where the IC can be demonstrated “straight from the Bible”. While I acknowledge that it COULD have happened (God is certainly free to do whatever He wants), I find nothing in Scripture to convince me that it did, in fact, happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top