C
Chuck_Finley
Guest
How do you know?
- Status
S
snarflemike
Guest
Because the Church testifies to it. Same way we know the bible is the written word of God.
C
Chuck_Finley
Guest
OK. How does the Church know?
S
snarflemike
Guest
Because the Church remembers what she received, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
If I started claiming that Ben Franklin was actually the first US President, what would happen? My claim would of course be refuted. Similarly, if a false “Catholic” doctrine was proclaimed in the past, it would be refuted, and we would have a historical record of that refutation. False doctrines cannot take over an organization instantaneously. Therefore there is some time when there is a clash between believers of the false doctrine and believers of the true doctrine. This clash will always leave an historical record.
See e.g. Belloc’s “The Great Heresies” for examples.
C
Chuck_Finley
Guest
And how does the Church know it received this from the Holy Spirit? Are you suggesting that the Church receives extra-Biblical revelation, even after the closing of the canon?
The difference is that, if you claimed Ben Franklin was the first president, I could show you actual documents from history that show Franklin was not the first president.
On the other hand, if I claimed Ben Franklin was the first president and that historical documents really didn’t matter because I was given this knowledge by a group of men who claimed to be infallible, how should I defend my claims in light of your evidence from objective historical sources?
S
snarflemike
Guest
Extra-biblical (and pre-New Testament) revelation, yes, until the close of the age of the apostles.
You missed my point. The apostles didn’t need documents to verify what Christ and the Holy Spirit taught them. If somebody had claimed to the apostles that Mary had sinned, and they had already been taught that she was sinless, they would of course have refuted that and made sure that the correct doctrine was taught. That exact mechanism holds for each generation after the apostles, right down to the present day. Of course all Church teachings have been written down by now, but they were written down after they were first received. Written documents for the Church are an output, not an (name removed by moderator)ut.
S
snarflemike
Guest
BTW, it would be REALLY helpful if you would indicate your religious or non-religious background in the Religion section of your profile. It helps us to understand your objections and formulate better responses.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Like so
OK, here’s an actual document that says Mary is sinless (and it didn’t come from Rome)
By for example showing that each of these men were Supreme Court justices who settled disputes about who the president was (example)
C
Chuck_Finley
Guest
So then, what makes that extra-Biblical revelation any different than Pat Robertson’s extra-Biblical revelation when he says “God is telling me…”?
And how are we to test this “extra-Biblical revelation”?
And my point is that we’re not the Apostles so we do need an objective and authoritative standard by which to judge what you claim Christ and the Holy Spirit taught them.
How would you know what the correct doctrine is without the objective and authoritative standard of scripture?
E
EricFilmer
Guest
What Pat Robertson says in such situations is not part of the Deposit of Faith, which the glossary of the C.C.C. defines as “The heritage of faith contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, handed on in the Church from the time of the Apostles, from which the Magisterium draws all that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed.”
It is not “extra-biblical” in the sense that the Bible is completely silent on this issue. The Immaculate Conception is implied in Scripture (as has been demonstrated in this thread, see, for example, Posts #7, 12 & 15) but is mostly drawn from Sacred Tradition.
The authenticity of any doctrine is tested by the Magisterium.
You’re displaying a double-standard because this statement is not found in the Bible. You seem to reject the validity of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception because it is extra-biblical (in your opinion) and then you make an extra-biblical statement about Scripture being the “objective and authoritative standard.”
Through the Magisterium which has a guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit not to err when making official definitions concerning faith and morals.
If you still disagree then I challenge you to use the “objective and authoritative standard of scripture” to do the following.
Cite the Bible passages that state (or clearly demonstrate) the following…
1) Scripture is the “objective and authoritative standard” of Christian doctrine (i.e., prove the principle of Sola Scripture from the Bible alone. In other words, does Sola Scriptura pass its own test?).
2) There is one God who exists as three, and only three, divine persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are fully united to each other and, at the same time, fully distinct from one another. (i.e., prove the doctrine of the Holy Trinity from the Bible alone; note that the Oneness Pentecostals say it can’t be done, which is why they reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, but maybe you know some Bible passages that they overlooked).
3) The divine nature of Christ is of the same substance of the Father, not similar. (i.e., prove this aspect of the Nicene Creed from the Bible alone; note that the council fathers at Nicea couldn’t went refuting the Arian Heresy).
4) How the Church determines what books belong in the Bible (i.e., prove the canon of Scripture using the Bible alone).
I am presenting these challenges as a way of proving my point about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. As Catholics we state (as I have mentioned before) that the Immaculate Conception is implied in the Bible and more fully drawn from Sacred Tradition. As far as I can tell, it is the same situation regarding the four challenges I have issued you. Therefore, the challenges are designed to see if you can prove these teachings by the plain words of Scripture without resorting to personal interpretation or extra-biblical tradition. If you cannot then I would expect you to either concede the point or reject the teachings concerning Sola Scriptura, the Holy Trinity, the eternal divine nature of Christ, and the canon of Scripture (for the exact same reason you reject the Immaculate Conception).
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Gospel Support of the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception:
Although Yada has already referenced Luke 1:28 in Post #12, I think this thread would benefit from some additional elaboration on the significance of the angelic greeting therein (as regarding the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception). Both of the following articles are fairly brief and, therefore, can be quickly read:
Jimmy Akin’s “The Immaculate Conception has to be Read into Luke 1:28”
CAF’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption"
Although Yada has already referenced Luke 1:28 in Post #12, I think this thread would benefit from some additional elaboration on the significance of the angelic greeting therein (as regarding the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception). Both of the following articles are fairly brief and, therefore, can be quickly read:
Jimmy Akin’s “The Immaculate Conception has to be Read into Luke 1:28”
CAF’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption"
E
EricFilmer
Guest
I think my brother actually meant to link Ineffabilis Deus (which deals with the Immaculate Conception) rather than “Munificentissimus Deus” (which deals with the Assumption of Mary). I’m guessing David was a little rushed at the time and the fact that the word “assumption” came up in the OP threw him off.
S
snarflemike
Guest
Why do you assume that biblical revelation is superior? Why do you assume the bible is even what you believe it is?
And for this reason Christ founded a Church which has been given the power to bind and loose, and is guided by the Holy Spirit for all ages. Surely you can see the logic in this?
What makes scripture objective and authoritative? The answer MUST be something outside of scripture.
F
figs
Guest
What does all this have to do with weather or not Catholics believe Mary was sinless? … just sayin 
M
Mintaka
Guest
The whole point of having a New Adam is underlined by having a New Eve, the virgin earth from which the new mankind was formed.
If the New Eve had ever sinned, she couldn’t possibly do anything to “undo the knots tied by Eve”, as St. Irenaeus put it. She would just have started a new Fall and made matters worse.
Whenever anybody in early Church history suggested that Mary had sinned, or even that her answer to the angel or her asking to see Jesus suggested doubt, everybody else jumped on them like a piledriver. Whenever anybody brought up “We have all sinned,” people reacted with horror at the mere thought that Mary could possibly be included.
Luke 1:45 and Luke 11:28 were constantly quoted as praise of her. What people enjoyed doing was finding Mariological applications of verses, just like they liked Christological applications. Things like “Thou art all fair, my love, and there is no spot in thee” or the spotless ewe lambs for sacrifice, or the ewe lamb raised as a pet, or the Valiant Woman in Proverbs. There are literally thousands of Biblical quotes, and as a network they tell the whole story of Mary.
But mostly, it’s because, without one regular human who never sinned, without even one person having the free will and grace to choose correctly, there’s a lot less hope for humanity. It points toward absolute depravity for humans; instead of all humans being made in the image and likeness of God, and Adam and Eve having had a free choice that could have gone either way. We believe Mary is sinless, and we believe God plays fair with humanity, because He is loving and just, and does not leave us orphans or make Creation badly.
If the New Eve had ever sinned, she couldn’t possibly do anything to “undo the knots tied by Eve”, as St. Irenaeus put it. She would just have started a new Fall and made matters worse.
Whenever anybody in early Church history suggested that Mary had sinned, or even that her answer to the angel or her asking to see Jesus suggested doubt, everybody else jumped on them like a piledriver. Whenever anybody brought up “We have all sinned,” people reacted with horror at the mere thought that Mary could possibly be included.
Luke 1:45 and Luke 11:28 were constantly quoted as praise of her. What people enjoyed doing was finding Mariological applications of verses, just like they liked Christological applications. Things like “Thou art all fair, my love, and there is no spot in thee” or the spotless ewe lambs for sacrifice, or the ewe lamb raised as a pet, or the Valiant Woman in Proverbs. There are literally thousands of Biblical quotes, and as a network they tell the whole story of Mary.
But mostly, it’s because, without one regular human who never sinned, without even one person having the free will and grace to choose correctly, there’s a lot less hope for humanity. It points toward absolute depravity for humans; instead of all humans being made in the image and likeness of God, and Adam and Eve having had a free choice that could have gone either way. We believe Mary is sinless, and we believe God plays fair with humanity, because He is loving and just, and does not leave us orphans or make Creation badly.
E
EricFilmer
Guest
What exactly are you referring to?What does all this have to do with weather or not Catholics believe Mary was sinless? … just sayin
Every post in this thread addresses the topic of the Catholic belief in the sinless nature of Mary.
- Status