Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

[Peter_J]

Hello,

Can you provide a Catholic reference to this answer…does the Catholic church teach that the Bible is infallible and if so, what sense? Look at the previous post to the link I was reviewing…thanks.

Hi NC,

The following is not an official Church statement or anything, but I think it might help you understand in what sense Catholics consider the bible “infallible”:

… In fact, the Bible Christians insist that the Bible alone is our authority because the Bible is infallible.

Well, ask them. If God was capable of using thousands of sinners to infallibly communicate infallible truth, then, so that the Church could see it as the truth, which is the Bread of Life, which is Christ himself and all the teachings, if God could do it then, with fallible sinners, like Peter and Paul and John and Matthew, couldn’t He still do it? In other words, certainly God is capable; and if you look around at how the Church spreads throughout the world, and how the Church encounters all kinds of crazies down through the ages, do you suppose that Jesus would say, “Well, once I give the Church this infallible scripture, there really is no need anymore for infallible interpretations of scripture. The Church can hold together just with the infallible Bible.”

Oh, really? In just 500 years, there are literally thousands and thousands of denominations that are becoming ever more numerous continuously because they only go with the Bible. It points to the fact that we need an infallible interpretation of this infallible book, don’t we. I mean, can you imagine the fathers of our country putting together the U.S. Constitution and mailing it out to every citizen and saying, “Fend for yourselves. Go it alone; with the spirit of Washington you will be guided to your proper interpretation.” What do you call that? Anarchy. We wouldn’t have lasted a month as a nation. The Constitution established a governmental structure with a court of final appeal, the Supreme Court, that is final in all matters of constitutional interpretation.

Now that’s in the human sphere. If the constitutional founders had sufficient wisdom to see the need for one little nation in 200 years to have a court of final appeal, how much more would Christ see the need to establish and constitute in the Church and putting in His constitution not only the truth but the official organs for interpreting and enforcing and explaining and preaching and proclaiming that truth. It’s just common sense. It’s not unprecedented either.

• Dr. Scott Hahn

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

 

[nbtb1348]

Hi NC,

The following is not an official Church statement or anything, but I think it might help you understand in what sense Catholics consider the bible “infallible”:

• Dr. Scott Hahn

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

There is a major difference between the two. Jesus comes and lives inside born again Christian and He has promised to guide the ENTIRE church into truth. And Paul says he gave “apostles and prophets and evangelists and pastor-teachers to equip the saints” This is why the Evangelical community, outside Rome, tens of millions strong, is powerfully reaching this world for Christ and seeing conversions just like in the book of Acts. Jesus is doing his work and guiding his people and has been for 2000 years, and brilliant, godly pastors and teachers and professors and just plain laymen who know God’s word are being the church around the world. When you deny that you sound just like the pharisees of Jesus’ day–the religious big dogs that had all their i’s dotted and t’s crossed, but didn’t have power to truly change lives like we see in Acts.

 

[nbtb1348]

No, it does not. That verse says that scripture is profitable, which is certainly true. It does NOT say it contains everything we need.

Think of it this way, nb. If I am in olympic training, and I have a good guide to read on say, bobsledding. It is written by the master bobsledders, and is very profitable for my training. However, I still need practice, and coaching, and I need to eat right, and exercise, etc. etc. All of these things are profitable. None of them, alone, will make me a champion.

I agree. I think that the church dealt with this heresy at the Council of Jerusalem, and in the response to Pelagian.

No, I think not. I think that you are confusing obedience to Christ with OT “law” or something. You have already made it clear that you do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches, so it stands to reason that you will make harsh and inaccurate judgemental statements.

Along those lines, I would like to clarify that I realize not all Protestants have abandoned the Apostolic teaching on being born again.

What is your understanding of the Biblical teaching about the new birth? And then, how did it happen in your life? I need to hear that.

 

[nbtb1348]

Most Evangelicals don’t read the history of the early church, and do not know the source of the Marian doctrines, which emerged out of combat with heretics about the nature of Jesus. Between the Gnostics and the Arians, the Church had to work hard to define what the hypostatic union was all about. The Marian doctrines are just corollaries from this.

Most Protestants also have a twisted undertstanding of original sin, also, complements of Calvin.

I believe Romans teaches I literally sinned when Adam did, because I was in him–in his seed. But I was also born with a sin nature and thus I sinned regularly. What will set you free is when you understand (if you are saved now) that you literally died in Christ on the cross and rose with Him (Rom 5-8) because God placed you IN HIM. The old man died, and the saint is actually now alive in Christ, in union with Him. When you really see this, you know why you could never lose your salvation. You already died. The law and the punishment for breaking the law was fulfilled in Christ, and my old man had to be put to death. AND HE WAS! Digest that for a while.

 

[guanophore]

So, clarify this for me. Does the Catholic church teach that the Word of the living God is or isn’t infallible concerning the rule of faith and practice?

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus, who is the Word, is infallible concerning faith and practice. He gave all to His Apostles, then He authorized them to teach and to shepherd His flock.

Jesus is infallible because He is God. The Church is infallible because Jesus is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. These divine elements prevent the Church from error (fallibility).

Scripture is not capable of action,and therefore, cannot be fallible, or infallible. These terms apply to persons only, who have will, and capacity to act.

I found this on the new advent under heading.
“What teaching is Infallible”

I commend you for looking!

"But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above."

It never mentioned the Word of God, but as I understand you, the Bible doesn’t teach…correct…Only the authority of the Church in its interpretation is infallible?

Perhaps this particular passage did not reference the Word of God. To Catholics, this is Jesus. No pronouncements or Teachings are made apart from Him.

I think I got this right, but please check my work…thanks.: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#V

The Holy Writings are considered inerrant and inspired. They do not “act” or “teach” of themselves, but must be apprehended by a person in order to cathect these activities.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you, that’s what I ought to have said, rather than simply “Yes”. The bible isn’t infallible in e.g. matters of science; but it is infallible with regard to the faith. (Same with the Ecumenical Councils and the ex cathedra papal statements.)

I think it is more accurate to say the Bible is inerrant and inspired, with regard to the faith.

 

[guanophore]

There is a major difference between the two. Jesus comes and lives inside born again Christian and He has promised to guide the ENTIRE church into truth.

This is true. However, the Church that was given the promise to be guided was Apostolic. Those who were in union with the Apostles,and no others. Those who departed from Apostolic teaching and authority do not inherit this promise.

And Paul says he gave “apostles and prophets and evangelists and pastor-teachers to equip the saints” This is why the Evangelical community, outside Rome, tens of millions strong, is powerfully reaching this world for Christ and seeing conversions just like in the book of Acts.

Yes, God did give these offices to equip the saints. However, many have departed from the teaching of those appointed by Jesus, and having itching ears, replaced those appointed by Christ with appointees of their own making. We see this already in the NT.

Jesus is doing his work and guiding his people and has been for 2000 years, and brilliant, godly pastors and teachers and professors and just plain laymen who know God’s word are being the church around the world.

Such persons, with the gift of zeal as Apollos had, are eager to spread the Word, even if it is not entirely accruate. They are to be commended for their faith and effort, however misguided.

When you deny that you sound just like the pharisees of Jesus’ day–the religious big dogs that had all their i’s dotted and t’s crossed, but didn’t have power to truly change lives like we see in Acts.

I do not deny it, and I say with Christ “he who is not against us is for us”. Even a partial communication of Truth is better than none.

 

[guanophore]

What is your understanding of the Biblical teaching about the new birth? And then, how did it happen in your life? I need to hear that.

I think you do need to hear it, but it is a bit off topic in this thread. If you want to start a new thread,I will answer it there, or I can start one.

For the sake of this topic, I will re-iterate, the Bible does not “teach”. Teaching is an activity that requires a person. As profitable as the Holy Writing are, they do not have discernment, willpower, capacity for action and a number of other elements required for teaching accountability being one. When people say they were taught by “scripture” it means they taught themselves, based on how they interpreted what they read.

 

[guanophore]

I believe Romans teaches I literally sinned when Adam did, because I was in him--in his seed.

Yes, you certainly have the freedom to believe whatever your heart desires. However, this is not consistent with Apostolic Teaching.

But I was also born with a sin nature and thus I sinned regularly.

Roman Catholics refer to this as concupiscence (the tendency to sin). Only Mary, the Mother of Jesus was born without it.

What will set you free is when you understand (if you are saved now) that you literally died in Christ on the cross and rose with Him (Rom 5-8) because God placed you IN HIM.  The old man died, and the saint is actually now alive in Christ, in union with Him.  When you really see this, you know why you could never lose your salvation.

Well… we read it differently.

You already died.  The law and the punishment for breaking the law was fulfilled in Christ, and my old man had to be put to death.  AND HE WAS!  Digest that for a while.

Dear one, I have been digesting that for over 40 years.

The nature of sin has not changed. Sin still separates us from God. Being born again enables us to be able to choose not to sin. However, if one, after becoming a partaker of His grace, chooses to sin, there remains no sacrifice for sin. Such a one is cut off, thrown into the fire to be burned.

 

[Peter_J]

There is a major difference between the two.

Yes, there is a difference, because “Public Revelation” ended. Hence, an Ecumenical Council cannot add any new doctrines – but it is infallible nevertheless.

 

[NonCatholic]

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus, who is the Word, is infallible concerning faith and practice. He gave all to His Apostles, then He authorized them to teach and to shepherd His flock.

Jesus is infallible because He is God. The Church is infallible because Jesus is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. These divine elements prevent the Church from error (fallibility).

Scripture is not capable of action,and therefore, cannot be fallible, or infallible. These terms apply to persons only, who have will, and capacity to act.

I commend you for looking!

Perhaps this particular passage did not reference the Word of God. To Catholics, this is Jesus. No pronouncements or Teachings are made apart from Him.

The Holy Writings are considered inerrant and inspired. They do not “act” or “teach” of themselves, but must be apprehended by a person in order to cathect these activities.

If the Word of God is Jesus, then why do some many Catholics, like yourself, not have the Bible as “supreme”, above all else including rituals, traditions, catechisms and dogmas etc etc? You say one thing, but do another. Makes no sense to me at all. Either Christ is or He isn’t?

 

[rinnie]

Hello,

Can you provide a Catholic reference to this answer…does the Catholic church teach that the Bible is infallible and if so, what sense? Look at the previous post to the link I was reviewing…thanks.

If you want the the fullness of the truth. Go to the Catholic Church. They have the fullness of the truth. You will not find it anywhere else.

As Catholics we indeed believe in the words of the bible, and we are to read the words of the bible everyday. But first we must be taught to understand what those words me. And for that we look to the Church.

But as Jesus said I will never leave you, he has left us the Catholic CHurch, if you cannot find the answer there, it cannot be found. The Catholic CHurch is the living Christ.

 

[Peter_J]

If the Word of God is Jesus, then why do some many Catholics, like yourself, not have the Bible as “supreme”, above all else including rituals, traditions, catechisms and dogmas etc etc? You say one thing, but do another. Makes no sense to me at all. Either Christ is or He isn’t?

I’m not really sure what you mean by “supreme”; but nobody who has really studied Catholic teaching could ever think that the Catholic Church has a dim view of the bible.

 

[Good_Fella]

I believe Romans teaches I literally sinned when Adam did…

By succumbing to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin. Since we are descendants of Adam and Eve, we have inherited a human nature from them that is in a fallen state having been affected by their sin. Their disobedience is a sin that has been transmitted to the entire human race by propagation, the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice forfeited by Adam and Eve. Original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense; it is a sin which we have “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act. Thus original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of us. It is simply a deprivation of holiness and justice, the state of being fallen from God’s grace.

With his grace God redeemed Mary by preserving her from contracting a fallen human nature affected by the sin of Adam and Eve. In her mother’s womb Mary was not saved by being forgiven of any personal fault of hers. None of us are held accountable for the personal sin of our first parents. But unless God should intervene, as he did with Mary because of her predestined maternal vocation, we inherit a human nature fallen from God’s grace. All human beings, including Mary by virtue of her humanity, are implicated in the sin of Adam and Eve, but not in the literal sense that their sin becomes our personal sin as well.

Through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners.
Romans 5, 19 [NAB]

“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)

But I was also born with a sin nature and thus I sinned regularly.

We weren’t also born with a sinful nature, since Adam and Eve were created in the original state of holiness and justice before they fell from God’s grace. But we have inherited a sinful nature (concupiscence) on account of Adam and Eve’s fall from grace. This is what Paul means by saying “the many were made sinners”. We have inherited the stain of original sin that entails having acquired a wounded human nature inclined to sin. If Adam and Eve had refused to listen to the words of the serpent, then the human race would not have been implicated in their transgression and thereby made inclined to sin as our first parents had actually sinned. Like Eve, Mary, the new Eve, whom God had put at enmity - total opposition - with the serpent, was created sinless, but as the former’s anti-type she had never fallen from God’s grace by yielding to the devil’s temptations. The appellation ‘Kecharitomene’ signifies a permanent state of perfection in grace.

“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 Vl:ll (ante A.D. 446)

What will set you free is when you understand… that you literally died in Christ on the cross and rose with Him (Rom 5-8) because God placed you IN HIM… When you really see this, you know why you could never lose your salvation. You already died. The law and the punishment for breaking the law was fulfilled in Christ…

Jesus was not punished in our stead for our sins. He has atoned for the sins that we are inclined to commit and can only be forgiven through our repentance and act of contrition. This has all been made possible by the redemptive work of Christ, who by his death on the cross, has freed us from the universal power of sin and death. Christians still retain the flesh, or the old self, that frustrated the divine objectives expressed in the law, but it is foreign to their new being, namely the new self which is governed by the direction of the Holy Spirit, not the precepts of the law themselves. Living a life in the spirit by the power of God’s grace working through Jesus Christ, Christians are able to fulfill the divine will that was formerly expressed in the law.

Only by God’s grace can one be freed from the slavery of sin. The law itself is an insufficient means to free us from the grip of sin which resides in us and does not originate from the prohibitions of the law. Righteous people existed before the law was given to Moses. Like them Christians are enlivened for holiness by the grace of God. And in order to be saved Christians must cooperate with God’s grace given to them by the Holy Spirit. They must put to death the sinful deeds of the body and live a life in the spirit. Paul exhorts us to “put on” Christ. This means we must live a spiritual life in emulation of our Lord if we hope to be saved. Mary never acted in any way hostile to the will of God, and thus she could declare with absolute certainty:

“My spirit rejoices in God my Saviour.”

For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you [not Christ] put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Romans 8, 13

“He [the Holy Spirit] is manifestly a sanctifying power, in which all are said to have a share who have deserved to be sanctified by His grace.”
Origen, First Principles, I:I, 3 (A.D. 230)

 

[guanophore]

If the Word of God is Jesus, then why do some many Catholics, like yourself, not have the Bible as “supreme”, above all else including rituals, traditions, catechisms and dogmas etc etc? You say one thing, but do another. Makes no sense to me at all. Either Christ is or He isn’t?

The Word of God, Jesus, has expressed Himself to us equally in the written word, and in the practices. If all that was needed was to write, He would have secluded Himself in a quiet place and penned all the instructions. Instead, He personally chose and trained the 12. He then authorized them to teach. They transmitted the faith to us in two forms, all those you mention above (the Lived Word) and in the Written Word. That is why we hold them equal. That is what Jesus did.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

The hierarchy in the Bible is nothing like the Catholic church’s. There are Pastors and deacons in the Bible. If that is an hierarchy, then it stops there; the rest is a man made invention designed to control the subordinates mind and pocketbook.

Every other denomination is man-made except the Catholic church…unless you call Jesus the Man.

 

[Lujack]

Except you should practice what you preach. For the first 1500 years, the world was Catholic. Everything was Catholic in belief. Goes to show you how Christ must have established the Catholic church if that was the only one around. Protestanism hadn’t seen the light of day until about 500 years ago…clue?

The world was not Catholic for the first 1500 years. There were Muslims in the Middle East, there were people living in the Americas, there were people living in India and Asia and China that had not yet heard the Gospel…

Even all of Christendom was not Catholic. There were the Arians, the Nestorians, the Copts, the Orthodox…

Modern Protestantism had not yet seen the light of day, but dissension from the Church was not a new phenomenon.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

The world was not Catholic for the first 1500 years. There were Muslims in the Middle East, there were people living in the Americas, there were people living in India and Asia and China that had not yet heard the Gospel…

Even all of Christendom was not Catholic. There were the Arians, the Nestorians, the Copts, the Orthodox…

Modern Protestantism had not yet seen the light of day, but dissension from the Church was not a new phenomenon.

**Lujack, have you ever been to Rome? The Catacombs where the writings on the wall are all Catholic in belief? This dates from the years right after Christ. St. Peter being the first bishop of Rome for 25 years and his successors 2,000 years later to date with an unbroken link, how St. Ignatius in the year 107 A.D. called the church “Catholic”?
The Orthodox WERE Catholic but they broke away in unity with the pope in the year 1054.
Christendom WAS ALL Catholic. Even the Reformers were ALL once Catholic…you seem to be missing something here… **

 

[Lujack]

**Lujack, have you ever been to Rome? The Catacombs where the writings on the wall are all Catholic in belief? This dates from the years right after Christ. St. Peter being the first bishop of Rome for 25 years and his successors 2,000 years later to date with an unbroken link, how St. Ignatius in the year 107 A.D. called the church “Catholic”?
The Orthodox WERE Catholic but they broke away in unity with the pope in the year 1054.
Christendom WAS ALL Catholic. Even the Reformers were ALL once Catholic…you seem to be missing something here… **

First of all, Rome is not the world. It isn’t even all of Europe.

Second of all, if the Orthodox were no longer Catholic as of 1054, then Christendom was only “all Catholic” for 1054 years, not 1500.

Thirdly, where do you place the Copts, Nestorians, Arians, and Pelagians?

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

First of all, Rome is not the world. It isn’t even all of Europe.

Second of all, if the Orthodox were no longer Catholic as of 1054, then Christendom was only “all Catholic” for 1054 years, not 1500.

Thirdly, where do you place the Copts, Nestorians, Arians, and Pelagians?

**Oh brother…I give up… **