Immaculate conception

[JamesCaruso]

Agreed. It is a pity the (so called) Catholic Church today has departed from its original beliefs that were held for 1500 years.

It has not.

No, I reject the Roman catholic church, which is a heretical schismatic organisation!

That’s what all the heretics say!

OK, If the apocrypha was infallibly included in the canon before Trent, why is it that several fathers and Cardinal Cajetan (who was Rome’s trusted emissary sent to debate Luther) deny this?

It’s what the Church decides, not what individuals acting on their own accord decide. It’s the Church that Jesus promised to protect with the Holy Spirit, not individuals within the Church…

You serious? I thought the canon was decided on the basis of Inspiration by God, not its translation :eek

And, of course, they were. The earliest texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were deemed inspired of God, and so the Church was careful that its translations of these original texts into Latin and ultimately other languages were faithful to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

:. . . and a few errors in the translations

Any errors in the texts did not change the meaning of any Church teaching or doctrine. Any subsequent translation by other than the Catholic Church that has changed the meaning to accord with their doctrines is purely a fabrication. Only the CC has the teaching authority of Christ. All deviations from Catholic doctrine and dogma are heresies.

. .do you mean to claim that this is not true of your own church?

The Catholic Church is infallible in its teaching authority. When all the Bishops and the Pope together define a doctrine that must be believed by the faithful, that is an infallible teaching. For example, the teaching (Fourth Lateran Council) on transubstantiation is wholly consistent with the teaching of Jesus Himself, and with the practice of the early Church beginning with the Apostles. Any church that teaches otherwise is teaching heresy.

Minor disunity over (mostly) nonessential issues is better than complete uniformity over a different gospel which is no gospel at all!

Yes, there is a good deal unity, but not complete unity, in certain departures from the teaching of the CC, and one of them I mentioned above is the teaching on the critical issue of the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Most Protestant churches, but not all, deny this doctrine of Christ. The Episcopalian Church does not, which may be one of the reasons that so many Episcopalians are returning to the CC. But every sect I know of believes a little differently than every other sect, that is why there are different sects. It is meaningful enough to cause them to form their own churches, instead of joining existing ones.

Even if I agree with you about this awesome authority supposedly granted to the church, which catholic church has this authority? Roman? Orthodox (no pope)? Old catholic (no infallible pope)? Gerry Matatics catholic (no recent infallible pope)? If you don’t get this right, you go to hell!]

The Roman Catholic Church has the line of succession from Peter.

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal . . . . and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the Sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier.

…

 

[Arthropod]

Ι don’t have time to respond to all of that but:

Above is not a doctrine or dogma of the Church.

It is too a dogma of the church. Others more knowledgable than me tell me it is from the council of florence.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1916607

No, all you need to do is take Jesus at His word. He placed Peter as the head of His Church and declared that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He sent the Holy Spirit to guide and protect His Church. There is plenty of Scripture to back up Jesus’ giving of authority to Peter and the Church.

You are asking me to stake my eternal future on the dubious interpretation of a single bible verse. Many fathers disagreed with the current Roman interpretation. In fact, I have never seen any quote from any father who explicitly and unambiguously says that the bishop of Rome cannot teach error in certain circumstances.

 

[Trebor135]

In fact, I have never seen any quote from any father who explicitly and unambiguously says that the bishop of Rome cannot teach error in certain circumstances.

Me neither. Any such citation would intrigue me greatly.

 

[pablope]

tektonics.org/tulip/tulip.html

Of course, I suppose you will play the certainty card on me again, and call on me to shut off my mind and blindly eat whatever the RCC teaches.

On the other hand…why do you believe everthing opposed to what the RCC teaches? Indeed…it seems your mind is shut and follow blindly everthing that is againt the RCC?

You statement below is an example:

I believe the bible. I believe the bible is the sole and final authority. What does it say about using my own head?

 

[Goya]

Arthropod;10636385]

By the same analogy then, surely anyone who touched Mary would have been struck dead

Please provide the biblical citation where someone touches the Virgin Mary.

To answer your question: THE HOLY SPIRIT NEVER CONTRADICTS ITSELF.

Yet that is exactly what you are suggesting the Holy Spirit has done.

Was it mere coinicidence that Mary visited Elizebeth for 3 months–as the Ark came to stay with David for 3 months?

On the same hill in Judea?

That Daivd and John the Baptist are both said to ‘leap for joy’ when the respective Ark’s of the covenant come to them?

That both Arks are said to have been ‘overshadowed’ by the Holy Spirit?

That David and Elizebeth both use almost the exact same language in reacting in the same way–‘how is it that the Lord should come to me?’

Parallel/same circumstances, yielding same results–yet you would have us believe that this was meant to mean something althogher different–i.e.–that the Ark of the Old Covenant carrying the Word of God affixed on stone tablets, should somehow enjoy greater dignity than the Ark of the New Covenant carrying the Word of God, INCARNATE.

That would indeed be a contradiction.

Anecdotally–why else pray tell, is that passage of Mary’s visit to Elizebeth even in the Bible? Did we need infant John the Baptist to ‘leap for joy’ inside Elizebeth’s womb, to know Mary was carrying the Lord–i.e. the Word of God? Seems the Angel Gabriel made that pretty clear before Mary ever departed to visit Elizebeth…and elsewise subsequently…

I already posted several pages of explicit quotes. All you have is implicit inferals and ingenious reasonings and dubious types.

Again, your quotes are generalized statements concerning the geneal state of Man, after the Fall–such that they fail to make exception even for the Lord Himself. Clearly they were not intended to be read as such–nor to the exclusion of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant.

Augustine also had some interesting thoughts on one of my quotes:

I thought y’all Roman types revered the fathers?

Indeed us CATHOLIC types do–

Here are some more:

“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155).

“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty… Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).

 

[Goya]

^^^continuing…

“Accordingly, a virgin did conceive and bear ‘Emmanuel, God with us.’ This is the new nativity; a man is born in God. And in this man God was born, taking the flesh of an ancient race, without the help, however, of the ancient seed, in order that He might reform it with a new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner, and cleanse it by the re-moral of all its ancient stains. But the whole of this new birth was prefigured, as was the case in all other instances, in ancient type, the Lord being born as man by a dispensation in which a virgin was the medium. The earth was still in a virgin state, reduced as yet by no human labour, with no seed as yet cast into its furrows, when, as we are told, God made man out of it into a living soul…For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin’s soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced. …” Tertullian, Flesh of Christ, 17 (A.D. 212).

“And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.” Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 10:17 (A.D. 244).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair; for there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother. Of these two fair ones, to whom are my children similar?” Ephraem, Nisbene Hymns, 27:8 (ante A.D. 373).

“Whoever honors the Lord also honors the holy [vessel]; who instead dishonors the holy vessel also dishonors his Master. Mary herself is that holy Virgin, that is, the holy vessel” Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:21 (A.D. 377).

“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).

“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).

“[T]he 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.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I notice the scripture does NOT say “The religious authorities are right, even when they are wrong”, which is what you would have me believe. I notice it only applies to prophesy. I notice it does not apply to inspired straightforward exposition of facts, which is what I base my faith on.

It applies to prophecy, even though the Baptist was the last prophet? Christ has come, and all Revelation is complete. What else here could he be speaking about other than Scripture in general?

And where do you gather that religious authorities are wrong? What authority gives you the authority to proclaim this? How do you gauge that you are filled with the Holy Spirit and the Church isn’t?

And your exposition of facts has led you to a far different ‘gospel’ than historic Christianity, let alone the many hundreds of other different schools of Christian ‘theology’ (and thousands of individual communities) that have sprung forth after the Reformation. Are your Protestant brethren who differ from your interpretation also preaching a false Gospel? Who’s to say?

absolutely. Now go and read galatians, and see if Paul was trying to remain united in faith with those who preached a different gospel. Rome preaches a different gospel, so I feel justified in not remaining united in faith with it.

Again, you show absolutely nothing to point to Rome preaching a different gospel. You literally didn’t answer it at all, as all Protestants refuse to do. These answers you give could be so easily turned around: “Protestants preach a different gospel, so I feel that Trent was justified to declare anathema on them.”

Why not? I get instruction from other noninspired books on topics such as greek, justification, nutrition, biochemistry, so why not the bible???

Then your ultimate authority is not Scripture, but whatever interpretation you deem true. Please don’t say Scripture is your ultimate authority if that is obviously false. I could pick up a Bible and justify slavery (it’s been done). Personal interpretation is your god, you are your authority.

I, on the other hand, have two thousand years of continuity with the revealing of God’s will through His Church, a Church that has withstood all manner of heresies and falsehoods and remained united, preaching the Gospel to all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

OK. You are claiming the church of Rome does literally instruct and teach you? Like the bible doesn’t?
In that case, please prove there are no divisions in the church of Rome. Please prove there is no such person as Gerry Matatics (who says Vatican II was invalid), no such person as George Pell (who says Adam and Eve are mythical), no anyone else who doesn’t toe the party line on any issue.

There is the Church, and there are dissenters (read Clement and Ignatius). Those who proclaim any ecumenical counsel to be invalid have obviously excommunicated themselves. Those who preach anything contrary are not somehow validly a division in Roman Catholicism. They do not become their own Church. They become heretics or schismatics.

Hmmmm so reading the writings of the apostles doesn’t count as an apostolic scale?

Not even close. Do you interpret their writings on an ecumenical scale, like the Apostles in Acts 15? The Gnostics, and all manner of heretics, appealed to Scripture to prove their false doctrines. Only the Spirit guiding the Church was able to separate the wheat from the chaff over the course of 2,000 years.

If I hate what you call the true church, it is because it preaches a different gospel, which is no gospel at all!

So Christ didn’t keep His promise, that He would be with us always, until the close of the age? That the Paraclete would not leave us orphans? If Christ would break His promise of helping His united body of believers discern the truth, and allow a mighty false church to spring up and preach a false Gospel for hundreds of years, why are you Christian at all? That sounds like an extremely impotent God to me.

I pray you come to the fullness of truth. The saints and dogma and beautiful imagery are all to help us get closer to Christ. It’s all about Christ; try not to get too caught up in your hatred of a false image to see the truth.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Augustine also had some interesting thoughts on one of my quotes:

I thought y’all Roman types revered the fathers?

You like Augustine on whether Mary had sin?

Augustine:

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.

Chapter 42 of “On Nature and Grace”

newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm

How about this one:

Augustine:

In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.

Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, chapter 4: Proofs of the Catholic Faith

Or this one:

Augustine:

Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spoke in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; How, says she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin.

On Holy Virginity

 

[PeaceInChrist]

You are asking me to stake my eternal future on the dubious interpretation of a single bible verse. Many fathers disagreed with the current Roman interpretation. In fact, I have never seen any quote from any father who explicitly and unambiguously says that the bishop of Rome cannot teach error in certain circumstances.

Well, first let’s reason through it:

The Church, as a whole, is infallible. The successor of Peter, charged with tending Christ’s sheep, must do as Christ commanded. When this successor speaks in matters of faith and morals, in unison with the Church, how, exactly, would he err? People speak about the Pope making ex-cathedra statements as though they happened every day and that every bishop disagreed with them. This is quite false.

Now, from Ireneaus:
Ireneaus:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

It seems as though the Roman See had importance in the early Church, no? And if all other Churches must agree with the Church at Rome, what would that make the bishop when he taught in his capacity as Vicar? The ‘first among equals’ bologna didn’t come about for a while, when clear divisions occurred between the Eastern and Western Empires.

I really, truly cannot understand how you could believe that Christ left us without any way of discerning truth. You claim there are ‘little things’, but what are they? Is abortion ‘little’? Gay marriage? Whether Christ was punished by God or whether He was simply a perfect offering? Whether women can be ordained? Whether the bread is transubstantiated or consubstantiated or merely spiritual or symbolic?

If you would read the Fathers and history, you will find that all of the most decidedley vital doctrines that even you believe (Trinity, the need for a Canonized Scripture, that Christ came in the flesh, that He was begotten and not made, that He was both fully God and Man, ect.) would be classified as ‘minor’ things by you, but were actually the cause of councils and much strife to reach a unified conclusion guided by the Spirit. What makes you think God abandoned the Church, since it still functions like this? When did this happen? Why did it happen, when Christ promised the opposite?

It hurts me to see people who proclaim Christ in such confusion. I pray that the Lord leads you home, and grants you peace.

 

[thenobes]

Well in that case, the Holy Spirit inspired a bible detailing the gospel.

Which inspiration you could not recognize were the fact of it not revealed through the Church and therefore whose authority you implicitly also recognize.

Your “visible head of the church” has repeatedly anathematised the gospel of the bible.

Your “personal interpretation” of that gospel, and if you actually believe Scripture is God-breathed, you should realize that no prophecy (utterance from God by an apostle) is a matter of personal interpretation.

peace
steve

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Arthropod:

This thread is really about the immaculate conception, not justification. Here are my favourite passages, but please be advised that I will not respond to further critique of these passages in this thread, as I don’t want to drag it completely off topic.

Funny, you have done exactly what you said you wouldn’t.

You should know that Scripture can be interpreted by Satan himself to prop up his own arguments. Anyone can use anything in Scripture to prop up his own arguments. That is why, even in Scripture, it speaks of St. Philip interpreting Isaiah for the Ethiopian, and Jesus interpreting Scripture for the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

St. Augustine himself said he wouldn’t have believed the Scriptures if it wasn’t for the Church!

That is why the Church is the Oracle of Revelation not Scripture. Without the Church, Scripture is just a book of easily manipulated doctrines.

Where were the Evangelicals when the Doctrine of the Trinity was being formulated? Was that doctrine explicitly found in Scripture? Do Evangelicals deny the Trinity?

 

[Goya]

Some more fun quotes:

St. Augustine, again:

…

Why should there be such great glory to a human nature–and this undoubtedly an act of grace, no merit preceding unless it be that those who consider such a question faithfully and soberly might have here a clear manifestation of God’s great and sole grace, and this in order that they might understand how they themselves are justified from their sins by the selfsame grace which made it so that the man Christ had no power to sin? Thus indeed the angel hailed his mother when announcing to her the future birth: “Hail,” he said, "full of grace." And shortly thereafter, "You have found favor with God."76 And this was said of her, that she was full of grace, since she was to be mother of her Lord, indeed the Lord of all. Yet, concerning Christ himself, when the Evangelist John said, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” he added, "and we beheld his glory, a glory as of the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth."77 When he said, “The Word was made flesh," this means, "Full of grace.” When he also said, “The glory of the only begotten of the Father,” this means, “Full of truth.” Indeed it was Truth himself, God’s only begotten Son–and, again, this not by grace but by nature–who, by grace, assumed human nature into such a personal unity that he himself became the Son of Man as well.

This same Jesus Christ, God’s one and only Son our Lord, was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Now obviously the Holy Spirit is God’s gift, a gift that is itself equal to the Giver; wherefore the Holy Spirit is God also, not inferior to the Father and the Son. …
…

St. Thomas Aquinas, adding some [biblical] pespective (and quoting St. Augustine towards end of this excerpt):

…

“HAIL MARY”

We must now consider concerning the first part of this prayer that in ancient times it was no small event when Angels appeared to men; and that man should show them reverence was especially praiseworthy. Thus, it is written to the praise of Abraham that he received the Angels with all courtesy and showed them reverence. But that an Angel should show reverence to a man was never heard of until the Angel reverently greeted the Blessed Virgin saying: "Hail."

THE ANGEL’S DIGNITY

In olden time an Angel would not show reverence to a man, but a man would deeply revere an Angel. This is because Angels are greater than men, and indeed in three ways. First, they are greater than men in dignity. This is because the Angel is of a spiritual nature: “Who makest Thy angels spirits.”[4] But, on the other hand, man is of a corruptible nature, for Abraham said: “I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes.”[5] It was not fitting, therefore, that a spiritual and incorruptible creature should show reverence to one that is corruptible as is a man. Secondly, an Angel is closer to God. The Angel, indeed, is of the family of God, and as it were stands ever by Him: “Thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him.”[6] Man, on the other hand, is rather a stranger and afar off from God because of sin: “I have gone afar off.”[7] Therefore, it is fitting that man should reverence an Angel who is an intimate and one of the household of the King.

Then, thirdly, the Angels far exceed men in the fullness of the splendor of divine grace. For Angels participate in the highest degree in the divine light: “Is there any numbering of His soldiers? And upon whom shall not His light arise?”[8] Hence, the Angels always appear among men clothed in light, hut men on the contrary, although they partake somewhat of the light of grace, nevertheless do so in a much slighter degree and with a certain obscurity. It was, therefore, not fitting that an Angel should show reverence to a man until it should come to pass that one would be found in human nature who exceeded the Angels in these three points in which we have seen that they excel over men–and this was the Blessed Virgin. To show that she excelled the Angels in these, the Angel desired to show her reverence, and so he said: "Ave (Hail)."

“FULL OF GRACE”

***The Blessed Virgin was superior to any of the Angels in the fullness of grace, and as an indication of this the Angel showed reverence to her by saying: “Full of grace.” ***This is as if he said: “I show thee reverence because thou dost excel me in the fullness of grace.”

The Blessed Virgin is said to be full of grace in three ways. First, as regards her soul she was full of grace. The grace of God is given for two chief purposes, namely, to do good and to avoid evil. The Blessed Virgin, then, received grace in the most perfect degree, because she had avoided every sin more than any other Saint after Christ. Thus it is said: “Thou art fair, My beloved, and there is not a spot in thee.”[9] ***St. Augustine ***says: “If we could bring together all the Saints and ask them if they were entirely without sin, all of them, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin, would say with one voice: ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.’[10] I except, however, this holy Virgin of whom, because of the honor of God, I wish to omit all mention of sin.”[11]…

 

[JamesCaruso]

Ι don’t have time to respond to all of that but:

It is too a dogma of the church. Others more knowledgable than me tell me it is from the council of florence.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1916607

I am saying that those particular words are not the basis for the doctrine that the Catholic Church is the necessary means of salvation. IOW, the Pope was not speaking ex cathedra in that particular instance to define a dogma of the Catholic Church. If your question is whether the Church teaches that the Catholic Church is the necessary means of salvation, then yes, that in general is the infallible teaching of the Church.

The doctrine does not mean that only those who are in visible communion with the Church can be saved. It does mean, like the general Christian proposition that there is no other name than Jesus Christ by whom men can be saved, that Jesus has purposed to bring salvation to the world through His Church. Paul taught that those who do not believe in Jesus Christ through no fault of their own will be judged by their consciences. In a similar way, those who are ignorant of the fact that Jesus Christ established His Church to be the instrumentality by which He desires to bring men to salvation are not judged guilty of not joining the Church.

Here, in words better than I could ever fashion is the meaning of this doctrine:

It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfill all God’s commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is a true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church. In the order of Divine Providence, salvation is given to man in the Church: membership in the Church Triumphant is given through membership in the Church Militant. Sanctifying grace, the title to salvation, is peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church: it is the birthright of the children of God. The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church’s graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body. Yet the possibility of salvation apart from visible communion with the Church must not blind us to the loss suffered by those who are thus situated. They are cut off from the sacraments God has given as the support of the soul. In the ordinary channels of grace, which are ever open to the faithful Catholic, they cannot participate. Countless means of sanctification which the Church offers are denied to them. It is often urged that this is a stern and narrow doctrine. The reply to this objection is that the doctrine is stern, but only in the sense in which sternness is inseparable from love. It is the same sternness which we find in Christ’s words, when he said: “If you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin” (John 8:24). The Church is animated with the spirit of Christ; she is filled with the same love for souls, the same desire for their salvation. Since, then, she knows that the way of salvation is through union with her, that in her and in her alone are stored the benefits of the Passion, she must needs be uncompromising and even stern in the assertion of her claims. To fail here would be to fail in the duty entrusted to her by her Lord. Even where the message is unwelcome, she must deliver it.

It is instructive to observe that this doctrine has been proclaimed at every period of the Church’s history. It is no accretion of a later age. The earliest successors of the Apostles speak as plainly as the medieval theologians, and the medieval theologians are not more emphatic than those of today. From the first century to the twentieth there is absolute unanimity. St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: “Be not deceived, my brethren. If any man followeth one that maketh schism, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walketh in strange doctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion” (Philadelphians 3). Origen says: “Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, i.e. outside the Church, none is saved” (Hom. in Jos., iii, n. 5 in P.G., XII, 841). St. Cyprian speaks to the same effect: “He cannot have God for his father, who has not the Church for his mother” (Treatise on Unity 6). The words of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (1215) define the doctrine thus in its decree against the Albigenses: “Una est fidelium universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur” (Denzinger, n. 357); and Pius IX employed almost identical language in his Encyclical to the bishops of Italy (10 August, 1863): “Notissimum est catholicum dogma neminem scilicet extra catholicam ecclesiam posse salvari” (Denzinger, n. 1529). newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

 

[JamesCaruso]

Ι don’t have time to respond to all of that but:

I’ll take that to mean you have no serious dispute with anything said.

 

[chimo]

May be we can look at this from another angle. I am an Orthodox who believes in Mary’s life as a sinless person. However this might be the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as put forth from Rome on its own has two conflicting issues. If Mary received this privilege grace from God the question then is why is not the grace given to the rest of us. This tends to be the reaction of the Orthodox towards this teaching for it exempts Mary from the rest of us as they would say. And secondly this Grace given to Mary by which the doctrine is worded would have exempted her from dying. It seems to me that the doctrine as put forth from Rome still needs to be refined to help those who cannot accept it as it is worded today. May be the East can help. I wanted to know what makes one Immaculate Conceived? I thought about this for awhile and have come to the conclusion it is by the Holy Spirit which accomplishes this. Then the next question that comes is in what manner of the Holy Spirit that will accomplish this. I believe the Immaculate Conception of Mary was nothing more than her Baptism of the Holy Spirit. But this Baptism was not just any regular baptism. When we are baptised we receive only a portion of the Holy Spirit. We still need more deposits to receive the Fullness we need to get into Heaven. With Mary she received all the Fullness of the Holy Spirit all at once. This would explain the archangels greeting her with the words “Full of Grace.” Mary received all of the Holy Spirit that one can obtained in this life all at once at the moment she was conceived. Her Immaculate Conception was her Baptism by Fire and what a fire it was! In the Eastern Church there is a traditional teaching of this contained in the OT when Moses went up the Holy Mountain to see this burning bush which had a fire that would not consume it. In like manner this burning bush was prefiguring Mary’s Immaculate Conception as the Fire that came to her that would not consume her but rather she was consumed by the Love which this Fire gave to her. The burning bush in the OT according to the Orthodox Church is a prefiguration of the Holy Mother.

In this type of teaching we can see that Mary cooperated with this Grace by remaining sinless all of her life. This Grace given to her then does not separate her from us but makes her still one of us. What else cooperated with this Grace to make her sinless all of her life was also her two saintly parents, a saintly husband and a Jewish community that kept the faith alive. When we receive the Holy Spirit we still need more deposits to arrive to that Fullness that Mary has already obtained from her first existence.

I believe if the doctrine can be worded in this way the rest of Christendom including the Orthodox will be able to accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. By utilizing some Eastern concepts to modify this teaching it will be more acceptable to teach it to all Christians. The Catholic Church was correct in that Mary did received a Grace at the moment she was conceived however it may need an upgrade of its own statement to clarify of what manner this Grace was. I hope this has helped.

 

[Goya]

chimo;10638221]

…

If Mary received this privilege grace from God the question then is why is not the grace given to the rest of us

. This tends to be the reaction of the Orthodox towards this teaching for it exempts Mary from the rest of us as they would say.

What need, or even propriety, would there be of Christ at all, if God intended to give such a unique and special grace as that afforded to Mary, gratuitously, to all?

What your suggesting is basically forgiveness without repentence–which simply isn’t, and never was, the ‘deal’ offered by God the Father.

So basically you say ‘Why Mary and not us?’

Here’s why–because God chose Mary to be the vessel of HIS Incarnation.

Not you or I.

There must be something pretty darn special about THE singular human being to whom God the Father would entrust with God the Son. No???

That had to be one incredibly special human being.

No offense, but to respond with “…hey, why not me? I coulda’ done that…”–is the epitomy of entitlement, arrogance, and frankly, disrespect.

Rather than second guessing His judgment on that count, I’d kindly suggest profound gratitude for the fact that He came down at all–and the deepest respect and awe, at HOW He chose to do so (and through whom He chose to do so)–would be in order.

this Grace given to Mary by which the doctrine is worded would have exempted her from dying.

Nonsense. Christ Himself, died. Why would Mary have to be exempt from death, by any reckoning, or reconciliaion with Immaculate Conception?

It seems to me that the doctrine as put forth from Rome still needs to be refined to help those who cannot accept it as it is worded today. May be the East can help. I wanted to know what makes one Immaculate Conceived? I thought about this for awhile and have come to the conclusion it is by the Holy Spirit which accomplishes this. Then the next question that comes is in what manner of the Holy Spirit that will accomplish this.

It’s not ours to know how.

I believe the Immaculate Conception of Mary was nothing more than her Baptism of the Holy Spirit. But this Baptism was not just any regular baptism. When we are baptised we receive only a portion of the Holy Spirit. We still need more deposits to receive the Fullness we need to get into Heaven. With Mary she received all the Fullness of the Holy Spirit all at once. This would explain the archangels greeting her with the words “Full of Grace.”

I don’t see how that’s an ‘improvement’ at all. Plausible, sure. Consistent with scripture? Perhaps–but not as consistent with the Dogma of the Trinity, the New Eve, the Genesis to Revelation nexus, or the Ark of the Covenant, as the Immaculate Conception is.

---

I realy don’t understand how so many Christians can subscribe so whole-heartedly to the most difficult and challenging doctrine of the Trinity (e.g.–St. Augustine wrote a 1,000+ page tome on it, and never really ‘nailed it down’–just managed to shed some light on it–or rather, perspective)–yet, have such hang-ups with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which is essentially derivative of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Second person of the triune God became Man…through a human being.

Not only is that occasion (the Incarnation) extraordinarily significant–but the particular ‘human being’ in that equation (Mary), must necessarily be extraordinarly significant–nay, HOLY. To dispute that, it seems to me, one implicitly impugns the Holy Trinity itself.

 

[chimo]

chimo;10638221]

…

 

[AmbroseSJ]

chimo:

I believe if the doctrine can be worded in this way the rest of Christendom including the Orthodox will be able to accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Unfortunately, the Orthodox are not in union with the Chair of St. Peter, nor or they in union with any other figure of unity. IOW, they believe variously depending on locality, nationality, and their local Primate, Patriarch or Bishop. So what you believe to be essential in making this doctrine clear may be opposed by other Orthodox. Only by unity with the Chair of St. Peter, can this doctrine be fully understood in the proper light. For example the Byzantine Churches have no difficulty with the Doctrine and how it conforms to their own heritage/tradition which they share with the Orthodox.

 

[chimo]

Unfortunately, the Orthodox are not in union with the Chair of St. Peter, nor or they in union with any other figure of unity. IOW, they believe variously depending on locality, nationality, and their local Primate, Patriarch or Bishop. So what you believe to be essential in making this doctrine clear may be opposed by other Orthodox. Only by unity with the Chair of St. Peter, can this doctrine be fully understood in the proper light. For example the Byzantine Churches have no difficulty with the Doctrine and how it conforms to their own heritage/tradition which they share with the Orthodox.

I would not say they are not in union with the chair of St. Peter. It is more complicated than that. I find it is more the other way. It is the West that will not open her ears to them. That is what really hurts the Orthodox. It has nothing to do with union with the Pope. The East has a mouth as well. Its unfortunate that many in the West do not exercise this right for the Orthodox to be able to use it. I have a notion someday it will happen and the Pope will begin to ask for the advice of the Eastern Church. In the mean time conditions that were imposed on the whole Church from the past must continue.

I have no difficulty with the teaching either. I believe however if someone like the Orthodox do object to it than why don’t we see why and try to find ways to come to an agreement. Its sad though that the Church will find difficulty in addressing issues that are dear to her without consulting those who can make a difference. May be in time the Holy Spirit will address this. I find out so many times it is still not the right time. Many people are way too uninformed about the Orthodox and so the Holy Father cannot exercise his right to be able to do this until they are more who may think the same way as he does.

 

[JamesCaruso]

May be we can look at this from another angle. I am an Orthodox who believes in Mary’s life as a sinless person. However this might be the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as put forth from Rome on its own has two conflicting issues. If Mary received this privilege grace from God the question then is why is not the grace given to the rest of us. This tends to be the reaction of the Orthodox towards this teaching for it exempts Mary from the rest of us as they would say. And secondly this Grace given to Mary by which the doctrine is worded would have exempted her from dying. It seems to me that the doctrine as put forth from Rome still needs to be refined to help those who cannot accept it as it is worded today…

It is not a conflict. First, it was needful for the Word to become incarnate. Second, in all justice it could not come about except borrowing on the merits of the foreknown passion and death of Our Lord. Without the merits of Christ’s death there could be no deeming a soul exempt from original sin. It was not needful to exempt all from original sin in advance as with Mary, since freedom from original sin would be available to all through Baptism, even those who are ignorant of Baptism through no fault of their own by Baptism of desire.

It would not exempt her from dying anymore than it exempted Jesus Himself from dying. It is not original sin on our individual souls that causes us to die, it was Adam’s sin that brought death into the world, and it remains here for anyone who enters this world, free from original sin or not by virtue of Adam’s sin as father of the human race. If it were not so, then why, after we are baptized and washed clean of original sin, do we still die?

The more interesting thing to me is how Mary was so blessed as to be free from sin her entire life. This was done without interfering with her free will, yet it does indicate a measure of grace not extended to any of us. I am thinking that Mary had to pay a high price for that singular dispensation of grace, and that price was the living martyrdom that she experienced in her lifetime. In the end, the CC has a dogma that states that Mary was assumed into heaven, which is a parallel to Our Lord’s rising from the dead and ascending into heaven. So Catholics believe that Mary, being conceived without original sin and having lived a sinless life, as did her Son, is now bodily alive, as is He, in heaven. One day we will all be bodily alive with them in heaven if we persevere to the end. This last part represents my own thoughts and is not a teaching of the Church that I am aware of. I am not a theologian. .