Mary, the Immaculate Conception etc

[linus]

RyanL:

linus, my brother in Christ,

Let’s look at our discussion so far:

YOU: Where does the thought come from in scripture?

ME: Among other places, Kacharitomene. The angel calls her by this name because it reveals who she is. This is the same thing as when God renames (or calls by title) anyone else in scripture - like Abraham, Israel, Sarah, Peter, Immanuel, etc; and since it happens so infrequently, maybe we should pay attention to what God is saying through His messenger.

Ryan, when Abram was renamed Abraham by God he was then called Abraham throughout Scripture. When Cephus was renamed Peter he was called Peter in Scripture. Can you show me even one place after the Annunciation where Mary is called “Kacharitomene”?

Luke 1:30 does not say, "Do not be afraid Full of Grace for you have found favor with God. Lk. 1:38 does not say, "And Full of Grace said, “Behold the bondslave of the Lord…”. Lk. 1:39 does not say “Now at this time Full of Grace arose and went…” Lk. 1:46 does not say "And Full of Grace said, “My soul exalts the Lord…” Lk. 1:56 does no say, “And Full of Grace stayed with her about three months…” And in Acts 1:14 does not say, “…and Full of Grace the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.” In fact, no writer of Scripture ever calls her by the name “Full of Grace”, yet all call Cephus Peter and Abram Abraham.

Are you getting my point???

YOU: That’s not her moniker.ME: Every other time the word “hail” is used with anything following it (and not refering to an ice storm), it is followed by a moniker. Kecharitomene is her moniker, and this is what scripture supports.

By what I say above, that is not her moniker. And for this reason many English translations interpret it “highly favored one.” The angel addressed her as one highly favored. Like I said, this interpretation is supported by Gabriel’s explanation in Lk. 1:30.

As far as “where else in scripture”, that’s going to be hard to do since “kecharitomene” is only used once.

That’s right, it is only used once in Lk. 1:28. And if that was her God-given moniker, it would have been used to name her from that point on. But, alas, she is never called by that “name.” Because in context it is not a name but a description: one highly favored. And in context she is highly favored not because she is immaculately conceived (a concept totally foreign to the context) but because she is the one chosen by God to give birth to the Messiah.

Bottom line, there is no place in the Bible that teaches, exegetically, that Mary was immaculately conceived. And to argue that the Bible does not teach it is not anti-Catholic. I knew eventually the anti-Catholic card would be played.

If you want to believe she was immaculately conceived that’s your business, but to claim the Bible teaches it, then you must be able to prove it by Scripture. So far none of you have. Nor will you ever, because it is a teaching found in your tradition, not Scripture.

Peace and blessings.

 

[RyanL]

linus,

Here’s a prophesy:
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Here’s a fulfillment:
Matthew 1:23
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,”

Jesus is never called “Immanuel” anywhere after Matt 1:23, but you still believe it was a revelation of Jesus’ “moniker” (i.e., who Jesus is). Could you please tell me how ‘Kecharitomene’ is different?

Peace,
RyanL

P.S.
Jesus didn’t change Peter’s name to Peter from Cephas - ‘Cephas’ is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’, which means ‘Rock’ (same as ‘Peter’). Peter’s given name was Simon. Jesus changed Simon’s name to ‘Kepha’ to highlight who Peter was (Matt 16:18).

 

[linus]

RyanL:

linus,

Here’s a prophesy:
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Here’s a fulfillment:
Matthew 1:23
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,”

Jesus is never called “Immanuel” anywhere after Matt 1:23, but you still believe it was a revelation of Jesus’ “moniker” (i.e., who Jesus is). Could you please tell me how ‘Kecharitomene’ is different?

The difference is “Immanuel” actually means “God with us.” Jesus IS God, second Person of the Trinity. “Kecharitomene” is not literally translated “immaculately conceived.” You must take the word of your hierarachy that that is what Gabriel was referring to. But the context does not support such an idea. Please keep in mind what we’re discussing here.

P.S. Jesus didn’t change Peter’s name to Peter from Cephas - ‘Cephas’ is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’, which means ‘Rock’ (same as ‘Peter’). Peter’s given name was Simon. Jesus changed Simon’s name to ‘Kepha’ to highlight who Peter was (Matt 16:18).

You’re absolutely right. All these names you keep throwing at me threw me off. Actually, in context Jesus called Simon Bajona “Petros,” Greek for “a stone.” And upon this (referring to his profession of who Jesus is; He does not say “upon you”) “rock” (Gr. petra) He will build His Church.

 

[linus]

TobyLue:

Catholics have done no such thing as “poured INTO”. The Catholic interpreters have taught what was taught by the Church since its inception, even before we had the texts.

Since its inception? If that’s true then you’d at least find that doctrine being taught in the Book of Acts subsequent to Pentecost (the inception of the Church). Certainly NONE of the Epistles teach that doctrine. What proof do you have that it was taught by the Apostles even before the first N.T. Epistle was ever written; before the Gospel accounts were penned and Luke wrote his historical account? You’re claiming that the Apostles taught this doctrine orally but never included it in their writings? What proof do you have of this? Remember, all the N.T. Scriptures were written within the first century.

Examining the context of Lk. 1:28, how can one, exegetically, interpret “full of grace” as meaning “immaculately conceived?” How can anyone determine that that is what Gabriel meant when he greeted her, since the context is not at all about how she was conceived but about the One she was to conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit?

 

[linus]

Swiss Guard:

You may disagree with this interpretation, but don’t make accusations that nobody interprets “full of grace” as immaculately conceived. This interpretation was around 1500 years before your religion was founded.

You’re so anxious to “guard” your doctrine that the issue here flies over your head. I never said “nobody interprets “full of grace” as immaculately conceived” (obviously all of Catholicism does) but that you cannot derive that interpretation from the text, or the context of Lk. 1:28. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is poured into the word “kacharitomene,” it is impossible to construe that doctrine from the word itself. The only way you could is if Gabriel went on to explain to Mary that he greeted her in such a manner because she was “immaculately conceived.” But, of course, he does not. Check out the context: In Lk. 1:28 Gabriel greets Mary as one “highly favored.” In Lk. 1:30 he explains, “Do not be afraid, MARY (he does not call her “Full of Grace”) for you have found FAVOR with God.” He then goes on to tell her the event that will take place as a result of her highly favored position: she will conceive by the Holy Spirit and give birth to the Messiah. The narrative suggests nothing concerning Mary’s own conception.

The original question posed by “poppiedancer” was, in reference to the doctrine of the IC of Mary:* “How can I defend it? Is it in the Bible about Mary being without original sin???”*

People on this thread were pointing to Lk. 1:28 as Biblical evidence. But Lk. 1:28, and its context, state nothing about Mary’s conception. The doctrine must be poured INTO the Greek word by an outside source - not derived from it. It is based totally on the reasoning of men, not on an exegetical study of God’s written Word. It you believe it, you must believe it based on the subjective reasoning of men - not Biblical revelation.

 

[linus]

Sara Jane:

We know it by Divine revelation!

“Scripture and Tradition together convey the Word of God.”

Yes, Sarah. According to Catholicism “Apostolic tradition” is divine revelation. But the original question of this thread is whether the doctrine is found in Biblical revelation. But one could also debate the validity of the doctrine based on “Apostolic” tradition as well. In other words, did the Apostles themselves orally teach this doctrine and the Holy Spirit did not inspire it to be put in writing (Scripture)? But that must be the subject of another thread.

 

[RyanL]

linus:

The difference is “Immanuel” actually means “God with us.” Jesus IS God, second Person of the Trinity. “Kecharitomene” is not literally translated “immaculately conceived.”

linus,
You’re loosing track of the argument again. The argument isn’t whether or not ‘Immanuel’ is appropriate for Jesus, the argument is whether or not a person can be called something once by God or His messenger, never called that again (even in the same conversation) by God, the messenger, or anyone else, and ***still ***have that something be a ‘moniker’. The answer, as seen with ‘Immanuel’, is yes.

As for ‘Kecharitomene’, you’re right - it doesn’t mean ‘Immaculately Conceived’. It means “Filled perfectly with God’s grace at some point in the past, such that there is no room for any sin, with continued reality in the future”. This is exactly what the perfect passive participle of charitoo means. When something is “perfectly filled”, there is no room for anything but what they are filled with. This is where Immaculately Conceived comes from - we believe this “perfect filling with God’s grace” came from Mary’s conception. The only debate you’re going to find in the early centuries of Christianity about this is when Mary became sinless - never if.

Also, we should probably recap the conversation between Gabriel and Mary (but we’ll do so in modern day language and with stage directions, may God forgive me if it is offensive to Him) so that we can see if it truly is “in context”:

Enter Gabriel:
“I salute you, K, God is with you; You are the most blessed woman who ever was or ever will be!”

Mary:
(Looks astounded - never has a greeting like this been heard by human ears! But she’s just a temple-girl…what does Gabriel want with her?)

Gabriel Continues:
“Don’t worry, Mary, God love you especially. You’re going to conceive a child and name Him Jesus, and He’s going to be the Messiah. He will be the King of Kings, of a Davidic Line! His kingdom will endure forever.”

Mary Responds:
“Mother of the Messiah?!? Every Jewish girl’s dream! And mother of the King…why…that would make me the Giberah, the Davidic kingdom’s Queen Mother (1 King 2:19)! …but How? I’m consecrated to God as a temple-girl, and my virginity is part of that oath.”

Gabriel:
“The Holy Spirit is going to overshadow you like He did the Ark of the Covenant. He’s going to pull his cloak over you like Boaz did to Ruth, and you will conceive the Child of God.”
Gabriel now looks to Mary for a response…

All of creation now waits! Angels, with baited breath, hang on Mary’s every movement waiting for a reply. A “cloud of witnesses” hovers around, longing for Mary’s answer, which will result in the Gates of Hell being kicked open by her Son and Heaven being opened to all. If she says ‘no’, this will not happen. If she says ‘yes’, she will unloose the knot tied by Eve when she said ‘yes’ to Satan. Mary, the New Eve! Her yes will allow God to create the New Adam from the Woman, reversing Eve’s creation from Adam. Her ‘yes’ will bring Life into the world, whereas Eve’s ‘no’ to God brought all men death. But it’s all dependant on Mary’s free choice. He Who Needs Nothing, asked her if she would be the mother of His Son. The God of all Creation ASKED a mere creature her permission! Eternity longs for Mary’s answer, and watches eagerly as she replies, humbly:

“Be it done unto me according to Thy will.”

Explosions of celebration take place in Heaven!! Canons thunder! Trumpets blare! God will save creation! Jesus will come! Mary will do the will of God! Let all creation rejoice, for never has such a joy been known! A Savior! Immanuel! God loves us that much!

Mary was called Kecharitomene because it explained who she is. Mary is the New Eve, who (like Eve before her) was conceived without sin. Mary undoes the knot bound by Eve, and brings us the New Adam. Mary will feed Jesus, change Jesus, coo Jesus, lullaby Jesus, hug Jesus, cradle Jesus, teach Jesus, and love Jesus like no one ever has or ever will. He Who Needs Nothing, condescended to need her. Jesus doesn’t need you or me, but Jesus needs Mary.

Kacharitomene is probably not even strong enough.

linus:

n context Jesus called Simon Bajona “Petros,” Greek for “a stone.”

Oy Gevalt! Go here to read the old dialog between some fairly impressive Greek scholars, and then feel free to post about it on the new thread here.

May God bless you and keep you,
RyanL

 

[linus]

RyanL:

Also, we should probably recap the conversation between Gabriel and Mary (but we’ll do so in modern day language and with stage directions, may God forgive me if it is offensive to Him) so that we can see if it truly is “in context”:

“Recap” the conversation between Gabriel and Mary in modern day language??? You’re not recapping here, you’re making commentary and inserting aberrant notions not even hinted to in the Biblical context of Lk. 1:28. Things such as she referring to herself as *“Queen Mother”; * the idea that Mary was a “temple-girl” and vowed to perpetual virginity; that Joseph was an older man like Boaz, not a true husband in the natural sense but merely a protectorate; and that the reversal of sin in the world hinged upon Mary’s free-will choice to take on the job, thus making her a “new Eve.”

This is ALL commentary, Ryan. It is not even remotely derived from the context (exegesis), but elaborately read INTO it (eisegesis). I hope TobyLue and the others will take an unbiased look at what you’ve presented here and realize how all of these Marian doctrines, even the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception, are read INTO the text.

Your comment (probably not your own words) that Eve’s “no” to God’s will “brought all men death” is totally unscriptural. The Bible does not attribute the entering of sin into this world, and the spread of death to all men to Eve, but to ADAM. And Scripture never attributes redemption to the obedience of Mary but to the obedience of Jesus Christ alone, the *“Last Adam.” *.

“Therefore, just as through one MAN sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (i.e., in Adam, Rom. 5:12).

“For if by the transgression of the ONE (i.e., Adam), the many died, MUCH MORE did the grace of God and the gift of the grace of the ONE Man, Jesus Christ (the gift of justification), abound to the many” (Rom. 5:15).

“For through the ONE MAN’S disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one (i.e., Jesus Christ) the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19).

You might want to read Romans 5:12-21 yourself to get God’s point of view on this.

“Mother of the Messiah?!? Every Jewish girl’s dream! And mother of the King…why…that would make me the Giberah, the Davidic kingdom’s Queen Mother (1 King 2:19)! …but How? I’m consecrated to God as a temple-girl, and my virginity is part of that oath.”

(1) We are not now in the “Davidic Kingdom” age but in the Church age. The time when Christ is building His Church, the Body of Christ (Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 12:13). (2) None of the Biblical prophecies that tell of the glorious “Kingdom” age to come speak of a the idea of a *“Queen Mother” * reigning alongside her Son. The fact that Solomon elevated his mother to such a position gives absolutely no validity to the man-made doctrine of Mary being elevated to such a heavenly position now - or ever. King David himself did not elevate his mother to that position, nor did God ever instruct any of the subsequent kings of Judah (including Solomon) to do so.

The idea that Mary was a “temple-girl” comes from the numerous apocryphal gospels of the third and fourth centuries. They decorated the life of Mary with fantastic (fanciful) fables and wonders of all kinds, and fueled the pseudo-historical foundation for the unscriptural Mariology (even Mariolotry for many) of the Catholic Church.

Though the church condemned this apocryphal literature, still many of the incredible elements of it, such as the names of Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna, her birth in a cave, her education in the temple, and her mock marriage with the “aged Joseph,” passed into Catholic tradition. All having absolutely no Scriptural support.

Your commentary is based on this apocryphal literature, Ryan, not the text or context of Lk. 1:28.

 

[RyanL]

linus,

Glad to see you’re still with us.

1. I notice that your post completely dropped the idea of ‘Kecharitomene’ being a moniker. Do you now agree? Or will you now assert that ‘Immanuel’ is not a moniker?

This is ALL commentary, Ryan.

Not all. Quite a bit is explicitly scriptural, actually, but I’ll readily admit that there is a goodly amount of commenary (and stage direction) mixed in.

1. Jesus is a king in the line of David - here you agree. Christ has a kingdom - here you also agree. As a Davidic king, Christ has a Davidic kingdom - here you disagree. You would have us separate the king from the kingdom, and you have provided no reason as to why, merely some musings about an un-explicitly-scriptural “Church Age”. You clearly see that the Queen Mother is strongly linked to a Davidic kingdom (look at just about any king in the Biblical history of Israel and you’ll see his mother mentioned immediately after his first mention, in addition to a Queen Mother ruling in place of her son for a period of 7 years!). You go one non-biblical step beyond, however, and attempt to rip Christ off of His Davidic throne and separate Him from His kingdom, with no biblical citation as to why. In fact, there are several very strong reasons to believe that Christ did, in fact, establish a Davidic kingdom - the earthly/heavenly fulfillment of the Davidic shadows. If God writes history the way men write books, why would God write us a history of kingdoms if not to show us the TRUE kingdom? You have to answer this to make your point. Why was Christ of the Davidic line? What bearing would that have if not to show us the true king and kingdom?
2. As for Eve’s part in the fall of man, I challenge you to tell the account of Original Sin entering the world without her. I’ll be waiting.

May God keep your mind open to my responses, and not immediately shut them out as “contrary to your theology”,
RyanL

 

[linus]

TobyLue:

Catholics have done no such thing as “poured INTO”. The Catholic interpreters have taught what was taught by the Church since its inception, even before we had the texts.

Oh, I forgot to mention that the chief bone of contention between the Dominican order and the Franciscan was the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Dominican order followed Thomas Aquinas. The Thomists finally lost out by the decree of the I. C. of M. in 1854. Thomas Aquinas did not teach the doctrine, nor did Augustine, for that matter. Up until 1854 it had always been a disputed doctrine in the Catholic Church. Your assertion that it had been taught and accepted in the Church since its inception is hardly true to the fact of Church history.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

linus:

Oh, I forgot to mention that the chief bone of contention between the Dominican order and the Franciscan was the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The Dominican order followed Thomas Aquinas. The Thomists finally lost out by the decree of the I. C. of M. in 1854. Thomas Aquinas did not teach the doctrine, nor did Augustine, for that matter. Up until 1854 it had always been a disputed doctrine in the Catholic Church. Your assertion that it had been taught and accepted in the Church since its inception is hardly true to the fact of Church history.

St. Thomas Aquinas did claim that Mary was sinless. He did not claim that Mary was sanctified from the moment of her conception (Immaculate Conception), he did claim that she was sanctified before her birth, and so never committed personal sin.

"I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: ‘(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.’ Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30,31): ‘Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,’ etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: ‘The glory of children are their fathers’: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother’s shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): ‘What concord hath Christ with Belial?’ Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the ‘Divine Wisdom’ (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): ‘Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.’

We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: ‘Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,’ etc." (Summa Theologiae, III, 27,4)

 

[linus]

RyanL:

linus,

Glad to see you’re still with us.

1. I notice that your post completely dropped the idea of ‘Kecharitomene’ being a moniker. Do you now agree? Or will you now assert that ‘Immanuel’ is not a moniker?

You can’t beat a dead horse, my friend. I continue to stand by the more accurate interpretation,* “Hail, favored one…”.* You, of course, will stand by yours. Nevertheless, you still have not proven by the word* "kecharitomene, "* or the text, or the context, or anywhere else in the Scriptures, that Gabriel meant by his saluation that she was “immaculately conceived.” I, on the other hand, have pointed out that Gabriel explains the meaning of his salutation in Lk. 1:30 (within the context).

Gotta run, it’s my vacation day, lots of sun and I’m going to take advantage of the free time. **Happy 4th. ** Having been freed from Europe we have the right in America to openingly discuss these issues without being persecuted by the ruling government.

I’ll respond to the rest of your post later.

Peace and freedom

 

[linus]

Sarah Jane:

St. Thomas Aquinas did claim that Mary was sinless. He did not claim that Mary was sanctified from the moment of her conception (Immaculate Conception), he did claim that she was sanctified before her birth, and so never committed personal sin.

But the issue here is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Augustine also taught that she committed no “actual” sins, but like Aquinas, he did not go so far as to teach her I. C. – the topic of this thread. And the question of this thread is whether or not the doctrine is literally taught anywhere in Scripture?

 

[TobyLue]

Linus

Since its inception? If that’s true then you’d at least find that doctrine being taught in the Book of Acts subsequent to Pentecost (the inception of the Church). Certainly NONE of the Epistles teach that doctrine. What proof do you have that it was taught by the Apostles even before the first N.T. Epistle was ever written; before the Gospel accounts were penned and Luke wrote his historical account? You’re claiming that the Apostles taught this doctrine orally but never included it in their writings? What proof do you have of this? Remember, all the N.T. Scriptures were written within the first century.

You fail to understand that not everything was written down but passed on orally

Since when are all the doctrines supposed to be listed in the Book of Acts.  That is an absurdity.

While it is true that some saints did not believe in the Immaculate Conception and St. Albert, St. Bonaventure, and St. Aquinas opposed the doctrine that does not detract from the fact. A feast to the Immaculate Conception was known as early as the 7th century in the East and the 9th century in the West. At the Council of Trent Mary’s exclusion from original sin is the Council’s teaching on original sin. Finally the Church, in her wisdom put the matter to rest forever, by formal definition on Dec 8 1854.

  Here are some of the early Fathers writings:

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”
Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94

“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),in ULL,94

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.”
Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254

“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),in THEO,132

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),in JUR,II:166

 Here are some links that can explain it better.

  [ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ201.HTM](http://ic.net/%7Eerasmus/RAZ201.HTM)

 and

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Your assertion that it had been taught and accepted in the Church since its inception is hardly true to the fact of Church history.

You are guilty of the same accusations you make. I said that the IC has been taught since its inceptions not that it was accepted by all. The reason for the Church declaring doctrines is when there is a question and the issued has to be settled. The Church will always act very slow. It may take years, decades or centuries to declare a teaching as dogma simply because the Church has to make certain. All the pros and cons are look at, studied, and then the Church in its wisdom will make a declaration. Not so with self interpreters such as the deformers and those that followed where everyone makes their own interpretations and declare it “dogma”. You can ask all those converts here what is meant by that.

 

[allhers]

Poppiedancer, this is probably why Jesus left us a Church, and even the bible says that the Church is the pillar of the truth, so, in reading through this thread, if i were you, i would still be confused. Fortunately, I was raised Catholic, heard the bible daily for years, (and even read it myself) imagine that
(in spite of what some lies some will tell you), read the links the good people on here have provided to you, and don’t listen to those who try to lead you away from the truth. I am sure you already figured that out, God bless you. these are some other good links to help you:
www.vatican.va the official vatican web site
www.ewtn.com and of course this site, go to the home page at
www.catholic.com there is much good information there.

 

[linus]

TobyLue:

You fail to understand that not everything was written down but passed on orally

Can you supply any kind of proof that the Apostles taught, orally, Mary’s I.C.?

Since when are all the doctrines supposed to be listed in the Book of Acts. That is an absurdity.

I didn’t make that statement. I said if the Apostles actually taught that Mary was I.C.'d then such an important doctrine, and ALL that the church has predicated to her down through the centuries, at least might be hinted to in the Book of Acts which records the Apostle’s gospel message to the world. And most definitely the Epistles!!! But, alas, nothing!!

While it is true that some saints did not believe in the Immaculate Conception and St. Albert, St. Bonaventure, and St. Aquinas opposed the doctrine that does not detract from the fact. A feast to the Immaculate Conception was known as early as the 7th century in the East and the 9th century in the West. At the Council of Trent Mary’s exclusion from original sin is the Council’s teaching on original sin. Finally the Church, in her wisdom put the matter to rest forever, by formal definition on Dec 8 1854.

None of this proves the I.C. was TAUGHT from the inception of the church, does it? Notice the dates of the early writers you listed? None go as far back as the “inception” of the church.

You are guilty of the same accusations you make. I said that the IC has been taught since its inceptions not that it was accepted by all.

I’m guilty of what??? You have yet to prove the Apostles taught this doctrine.

The reason for the Church declaring doctrines is when there is a question and the issued has to be settled. The Church will always act very slow. It may take years, decades or centuries to declare a teaching as dogma simply because the Church has to make certain. All the pros and cons are look at, studied, and then the Church in its wisdom will make a declaration. Not so with self interpreters such as the deformers and those that followed where everyone makes their own interpretations and declare it “dogma”. You can ask all those converts here what is meant by that.

Though this is how you justifiy the doctrine, you must still prove that the Apostles actually taught it orally. And based on the question of this thread, show where it is literally taught in Scripture. These you have not yet accomplished.

Why don’t you people just be honest here and finally admit that the doctrine of the I.C. is not found in Holy Spirit inspired writings (the Scriptures)? What’s your fear?

 

[Sarah_Jane]

linus:

Why don’t you people just be honest here and finally admit that the doctrine of the I.C. is not found in Holy Spirit inspired writings (the Scriptures)? What’s your fear?

If you don’t want to trust the Church’s teaching, it is your choice but to claim that we are not honest is not very respectful for us. :nope:

 

[TobyLue]

linus
That is just the thing. You believe in your own interpretations but I believe in the Church who has infinitely more wisdom than you will ever have and more experience too. Again read what I quoted. “You fail to understand that not everything was written down but passed on orally.”

Apparently you didn’t read either of the links I provided nor those provided by allhers and by PhilVaz and you want proof that the IC has to be mentioned in some type of writing in the first century. You then prove to me that the Apostles mentioned the Canon of the Bible. Which of them jotted it down? Where was it mentioned in the writings of the Early Church? Did Jesus mention it? Did Jesus ever command that his teachings be written down? Where is “The Trinity” mentioned in the bible or by anyone of the apostles? Where is it written down?

We trust our Church, you trust yourself.

Sara Jane

If you don’t want to trust the Church’s teaching, it is your choice but to claim that we are not honest is not very respectful for us. :nope:

I couldn’t agree more. Thanks and God Bless.

 

[linus]

TobyLue:

The reason for the Church declaring doctrines is when there is a question and the issued has to be settled. The Church will always act very slow. It may take years, decades or centuries to declare a teaching as dogma simply because the Church has to make certain. All the pros and cons are look at, studied, and then the Church in its wisdom will make a declaration.

While it is true that some saints did not believe in the Immaculate Conception and St. Albert, St. Bonaventure, and St. Aquinas opposed the doctrine that does not detract from the fact. A feast to the Immaculate Conception was known as early as the 7th century in the East and the 9th century in the West. At the Council of Trent Mary’s exclusion from original sin is the Council’s teaching on original sin. Finally the Church, in her wisdom put the matter to rest forever, by formal definition on Dec 8 1854.

Toby, the most well known teachers of the Latin church such as Augustine, Anselm, Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas, held that if the virgin Mary were not a partaker of the sin and apostasy of man, she could not be a partaker of redemption. To this Scripture concurs:

“But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness…” (Rom. 4:5).

“For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom. 5:6).

As I said previously, the question of Mary’s I.C. remained the controversy between the Dominicans who followed Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus and the Franciscans for many years.

John Gerson, chancellor of the U. of Paris in 1401 came out publicly in support of Mary’s I.C. But he admitted that prior to this it had not been an official doctrine of the Roman church. He held that God communicated this “truth” gradually to the church. Not realizing that his statement implied the rejection of Rome’s doctrine of “tradition.” The idea that the traditions held by the Catholic church are those that the Apostles themselves held and taught orally but were not written in Scripture. The Catholic church being the instrument used to preserve those Apostolic, oral teachings. But according to Gerson’s statement the Roman church of today may hold what the Apostles never held.

But the question of the I.C. remained undecided by Rome even up to the time of the Council of Trent. Nor was it ever decided at that Council. In fact, no Council declared the I.C. to be an official doctrine of the Catholic church. But on the 8th of December, 1854, Pope Pius IX went in great pomp to St. Peter’s and pronounced the decree himself.

So the doctrine didn’t even come into effect by common consensus within the church, but rather through the opinion and authority of one man and his office. So based on the history of this doctrine, (1) it was not according to Apostolic “tradition” (2) nor decreed by any church Council, (3) nor can it be found in Scripture itself. That’s why it took 1854 years to be decreed an official doctrine by the Catholic church? Not because it took 1854 years to fully investigate.

 

[linus]

TobyLue:

Apparently you didn’t read either of the links I provided nor those provided by allhers and by PhilVaz and you want proof that the IC has to be mentioned in some type of writing in the first century. You then prove to me that the Apostles mentioned the Canon of the Bible. Which of them jotted it down? Where was it mentioned in the writings of the Early Church? Did Jesus mention it? Did Jesus ever command that his teachings be written down? Where is “The Trinity” mentioned in the bible or by anyone of the apostles? Where is it written down?

The *Trinity * is a Biblical doctrine. It’s understood through Scripture itself. The Canon of Scripture is excepted by its internal and external evidence.

I did read the links you posted. The Armstrong and White debate proved nothing and the Catholic Encyclopedia merely asserts it.

Now the original question is where is the teaching found IN SCRIPTURE? Rather than send me to other links, please show us where it is taught in Holy Writ. If you cannot, then why not just admit that it is not there?