The Virgin Mary

[jmcrae]

Can you tell me which of the Apostles, “orally,” gave a list of the Books of the N.T.?

Considering that all of them except St. John had died when the last word of the New Testament was written, obviously, none of the Apostles had any idea even of the existence of the New Testament, never mind its contents. The concept of a New Testament Bible came about gradually, over time.

In the mid 150s AD, St. Justin speaks of the “memoirs of the Apostles” being read out at Mass during the Liturgy of the Word, so by that time, it had become important to set aside certain books (presumably the four Gospels, at least) that supported the oral teachings of the Church, to have them read out loud to the general public by way of instructing them and encouraging them in their faith.

The actual canon of the New Testament (that is, the specific table of contents, if you will) wasn’t settled until the late 300s AD, and was promulgated infallibly to the whole Church by Pope Innocent I some time between 400 and 405 AD. Once that happened, translations began to be copied and distributed to churches throughout the world, until, as we see today, faster and faster methods of distribution were developed until everyone, rich or poor, can have a properly-translated Bible to read.

Catholic “oral tradition,” by definition, is rooted in [the], supposed, non-written Apostolic teachings. Can you tell me which of the Apostles orally taught the IC and sinlessness of Mary?

No, but when I read the first two chapters of The Gospel According to St. Luke, it seems perfectly obvious to me that he was well aware of these doctrines. I know that he was a disciple of St. Paul, so he must have learned them from St. Paul. I assume St. Paul must have learned them when he went to study with the Apostles for three years in Jerusalem.

 

[Mag_Uidhir]

As some non-Catholics ought to like proofs from Scripture we give the following as a proof for the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” The meaning of this text according to all the Fathers and ancient interpreters, and the proof drawn from it would be as follows. The serpent is Satan, the woman is Mary the mother of the Redeemer and the seed of the woman is Jesus Christ. In this text there is said to be the same identity and of enmity between the woman and the serpent as between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. But the enmity that exists between Christ (the seed of the woman) and the seed of the serpent is absolute. Therefore so too is the enmity between Mary and the devil; but if she were in sin for any length of time this could not be so. Christ and Mary are joined in the same enmity against the devil, but if she were subject to the poison of sin this would not be so on her part.

I will give the same argument in other words. The enmity which exists between Christ and the devil is perpetual and excludes sin of every kind. But in this passage of Scripture the same enmity is is declared to exist between the woman (the Blessed Virgin) and the serpent (that is Satan). Therefore it follows that there must be a perpetual enmity between the Blessed Virgin and the devil, and this could not be if she were subject to sin of any kind.

Tomster

This is the best explanation I have ever had the joy to read. :tiphat:

 

[apophasis]

Considering that all of them except St. John had died when the last word of the New Testament was written, obviously, none of the Apostles had any idea even of the existence of the New Testament, never mind its contents. The concept of a New Testament Bible came about gradually, over time.

Thank you! So then neither the canon of the N.T. Scripture or the ICBV is based on the authority of Apostolic “oral tradition” as you asserted in a previous post:

This information comes to us via the same Oral Tradition that tells us which books belong in the Bible.

No, but when I read the first two chapters of The Gospel According to St. Luke, it seems perfectly obvious to me that he was well aware of these doctrines. I know that he was a disciple of St. Paul, so he must have learned them from St. Paul. I assume St. Paul must have learned them when he went to study with the Apostles for three years in Jerusalem.

But earlier you said the IC was based on the authority of “oral tradition,” not the Scriptures. I am aware of RC’ism’s interpretation of Lk. 1:28 (although one could not come up with such an interpretation or conclusion via a normal reading of the text if he wasn’t first introduced to Catholic interpretation), but where else do you see that Luke was “well aware” of Mary’s IC and sinlessness?

You suggest Luke was introduced to these Marian dogmas through Paul, yet in all of Paul’s teachings found in his letters he never once mentions them. Does he even mention Mary? Why would he then tell ONLY Luke about these things; and why would Luke be so cryptic about those Marian dogmas in his account? Things just don’t seem to add up.

So really, we’re back to square one. The ICBV, along with her sinlessness, are things that must be divinely revealed since no once could possibly come across that information on their own. It’s impossible to eyewitness an immaculate conception, hence it must be divinely revealed. Since it’s not actually taught in Scripture, to whom then did God personally reveal this event? When and by what means? Who claimed personal ownership of this divine revelation?

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you! So then neither the canon of the N.T. Scripture or the ICBV is based on the authority of Apostolic “oral tradition” as you asserted in a previous post.

What do you suppose is the Oral Tradition? Do you imagine people whispering secrets to each other? No - the Oral Tradition is the art, liturgy, poetry, music, sermons, wisdom sayings, rituals, and so on - it is the entire collection of all of this stuff, that has been handed down to us via the culture of the Catholic Church, and safeguarded by the Bishops, since the time of the Apostles.

The Scriptures come out of the Oral Tradition in that everything within their pages conforms to the teaching of the Church as it has been handed down from the time of the Apostles.

The Apostles had no idea that there was going to be a Bible, but if they were to pick it up and read it, they would say, “Hey, what a great idea! This is a wonderful way to pass on the message of Jesus Christ.” They never thought of it, but there is nothing in it that didn’t come originally from them.

Same with the Rosary. Nobody thought of the Rosary until the 1000s AD, but there is nothing in the Rosary that the Apostles didn’t know about, and again, they would look at it and say, “Hey, what a wonderful way to help children to memorize the story of Jesus!”

But earlier you said the IC was based on the authority of “oral tradition,” not the Scriptures.

That’s because we knew about the Immaculate Conception before we had a New Testament. St. Ignatius of Antioch (who died in 110 AD, just 15 years after the Apostle John finished writing the Book of Revelation) was speaking of Mary as “the New Covenant Eve” long before anyone thought of including the Gospel of Luke into the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

concerning Guanophore and the abbreviating of his handle:

I believe I also abbreviated once or twice in the same manner. I apologize.

I was totally unaware the abbreviation was a word in itself.

But I have to add that I think whoever reported this was looking to be offended. Surely this can’t be considered a common term.

I think the person reporting this should have sent a private message first, instead of assuming the worst.

I have a friend who everyone calls Gordo, short for Gordon. I met a Mexican who’s name I was told was gordo, so I called him Gordo. In Spanish gordo means fat. I was very embarassed when I found out and immediately apologized and asked what he would like to be called.

Again, to Guanophore, I apologize if I offended you. I meant no disrespect and would never intentionally behave so crudely and immature

Ginger

No apology is necessary, and no offense taken! I consider ‘guano’ a term of endearment, especially when used by my theological nemesis Apophasis the great.

I agree, the complainer was looking to be offended, and never even asked ME if I was bothered, or sent a PM prior to making a complaint to the Mods. I, of course, am well aware of the use of the term being an organic gardener. Guano is one of the most nutritive substances that one can apply to growing plants. However, I use the name guanophore because my word processor thinks this is how I should spell my name, and I find it amusing. If I am offended, I will PM anyone and let them know. It is my understanding that this is the Biblical way of handling problems, you go directly to the person you are having a problem with, immediately, and try to settle it. So, anyone who has used this nickname for me can now rest assurred that I am not concerned in the least. But thank you for your polite sentiment.

 

[guanophore]

In other words you admit it’s a post-Apostolic teaching.

I admit that I am not a student of Marian doctrines, and that I personally find the NT seeds and references thin in comparison to other post Apostolic doctrines (such as the hypostatic union and the Trinity).

I also personally believe, given my limited studies of the Apostolic history, that the writings pre-dated Mary’s death/departure. I also believe that the Apostles had great reverence for Mary (out of respect for Jesus) and would have kept any information about her very secret for her own safety. If they knew things about her, they would not have written them in order to spare her the scourge of Saul, and other persecutors.

Acts 8:2-3
3 But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison."

Could you imagine how any of the Apostles would have felt, had they indicated anything regarding the whereabouts and activity of Mary, then she got dragged off and tortured?!

Yet according to RC’ism it’s “traditions” are suppose to be based on [the] non-written (oral) Apostolic teachings. IOW, Apostolic teachings that were passed down orally rather than Scripturally. So which of the “successors” of the Apostles claims he got this information (verbally) about Mary directly from one of the Apostles?

I have not read any in the early fathers.

If so (where I don’t know), then Paul contradicts himself because in the Greek that passage states that “all sinned” (past tense) and are “falling short” (present tense) of the glory of God. Paul states in Rom. 3:9 that both Jews and Greeks (Gentiles) are ALL “under” sin according to the a direct indictment by God, followed by seven O.T. Scriptures (vss. 10-18). The first is quoted form Ps. 14 which statesPs. 14:2-3 "The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have ALL turned aside, together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.Paul is not, as you say, restricting the great arraignment in vss. 10-18 to the fool who says in his heart there is no God. The indictment by God that ALL are “under sin” and the arraignment that follows extends to ALL Jews as well who not only knew there was a God but knew who He was, having revealed Himself to them.

Catholics interpret all of these passages in the context in which they were written, and don’t apply them as some Protestants do. Catholicsm does not teach total depravity.

The “all sinned” (i.e., in Adam) and are “falling short” in Rom. 3:24 refers to ALL the children (sons) of men whom the Lord looked down upon. It is God’s testimony concerning ALL of Adam’s fallen posterity (both Jews and Gentiles); which then MUST include Mary. Any exclusion would have had to have been noted. NONE are mentioned!The “all” does not refer to “every single person ever BORN” but ALL of Adam’s fallen posterity, Jew and Gentile alike.

We believe/understand it differently.

For example, how do we fit this verse in with the passages above?

Luke 1:5-6

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

How can one be a sinner, and still be righteous before God, and blameless?

How were Enoch and Elijah taken up into heaven, where no sin can dwell, if they were under sin?

Jesus was not one of Adam’s fallen posterity - He was/is Himself an “Adam.” Not simply a “living soul” but a “life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45) whose righteousness is imputed to the one who accepts the testimony God has given of Him concerning His Person and sacrificial work on behalf of all men - including Mary.

If this is true, that he is not one of Adam’s race, then He is not really a descendent of David. he is not really born of Mary. If he is not born according to the flesh, in the line of David, he is not really a descendant of David. But we know otherwise.

Gal 4:3-5
4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son,** born of woman, born under the law**, 5 to redeem those who were under the law…"

1 Chron 17:10-15
11 When your days are fulfilled to go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever. 13 I will be his father, and he shall be my son; I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you, 14 but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever.’" 15 In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David."

This is why Catholics believe that Mary was preserved from original sin, so that she could truly contribute materially to the Son of David.

First of all the passage states (according to the Greek) that “all sinned” and secondly “are (continually) falling short of the glory of God.” It’s not an observation but a didactic statement concerning Adam’s race. IOW, when Adam had once sinned, in Eden, he continually fell short, outside of Eden, as did his race, by him and after him, Jew and Gentile alike.Yes, I was just using her descriptive terminology. The doctrine is extra-biblical. The whole Catholic tradition of her IC is forced upon the Lk. 1:28
passage. And nowhere else does Scripture bear this Catholic dogma out.

Another member posted the verses from Genesis and explained about emnity. We believe that emnity means that there is no cooperation between Mary and the devil.

So I ask again, to which Apostle was this bit of info. about Mary given personally by God. To which so-called church father was this Marian info. passed on? Which ECF taught the IC and claimed he got this revelation directly from one of the Apostles? Remember, Catholic “tradition,” by definition, is suppose to have its roots in verbal, Apostolic teaching.

The only NT writing that was done after the death of Mary is Revelation, where “a woman clothed with the sun” is mentioned. She is the one who gives birth to the saviour. Of all the Apostles, it seems to me that John, who took Mary into his home from the time of the crucifixion would be the most likely to know. It is also interesting to note that the Traditions about Mary grew up first in the Eastern churches. It is there that she is honored in the earliest prayers and liturgies. Perhaps you might consider posing this question on the Eastern forum?

 

[stranger_1991]

As some non-Catholics ought to like proofs from Scripture we give the following as a proof for the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” The meaning of this text according to all the Fathers and ancient interpreters, and the proof drawn from it would be as follows. The serpent is Satan, the woman is Mary the mother of the Redeemer and the seed of the woman is Jesus Christ. In this text there is said to be the same identity and of enmity between the woman and the serpent as between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. But the enmity that exists between Christ (the seed of the woman) and the seed of the serpent is absolute. Therefore so too is the enmity between Mary and the devil; but if she were in sin for any length of time this could not be so. Christ and Mary are joined in the same enmity against the devil, but if she were subject to the poison of sin this would not be so on her part.

I will give the same argument in other words. The enmity which exists between Christ and the devil is perpetual and excludes sin of every kind. But in this passage of Scripture the same enmity is is declared to exist between the woman (the Blessed Virgin) and the serpent (that is Satan). Therefore it follows that there must be a perpetual enmity between the Blessed Virgin and the devil, and this could not be if she were subject to sin of any kind.

Tomster

Hi Tomster,

Interesting argument that I have not come across before.

John 14:30:

"I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;

blessings

 

[Grace_Angel]

But what difference does it make?

If she had sinned would her sin have nullified the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross?

Would Jesus have ascended into heaven without dying for our sins?

Would our hope be taken away?

I am not asking why you believe she was sinless. I am asking what difference it makes?

It had nothing to do with nullifying sacrifice of the Cross. It had something to do with placing a purest of creatures (jesus) in a container which had been muddied.
Remember before sin entered the equation “EVE” was sinless. Is Mary the New Eve, and the one who was to carry whithin her body God incarnate, to be less than Eve.? I dont think so.
Blessings
Grace Angel.

 

[LilyM]

The Scriptures come out of the Oral Tradition in that everything within their pages conforms to the teaching of the Church as it has been handed down from the time of the Apostles.

Scripture itself is oral tradition put into written form, as the Jewish Talmud was. You can imagine John or Matthew being asked for the umpty-first time to tell someone everything they remembered of Jesus and just throwing their hands up and saying ‘tell ya what, I’ll write it down, that way people will quit pestering me!’

Same with Paul - squillionty-second time being asked about whether it’s ok to eat food offered to idols and the lightbulb goes off - ‘I’ll write it down so EVERYONE knows what to do!’

They probably had only a faint idea that they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - Peter, for example, recognises Paul’s writings as scripture, but I just can’t imagine that he would’ve thought his OWN letter to be so. Or that Paul would have thought so of his own letters either.

Point being they didn’t write EVERYTHING - and especially the Marian dogmas. For one they would’ve wanted to protect Mary. The woman in the Gospels singles her out for special praise, and I highly doubt that even Jesus’ retort would’ve stopped her getting that sort of attention for the rest of her life.

Polycarp, I believe, or one of the other super-early ECFs, writes of visitors flocking to her in Ephesus, if I remember rightly.

Besides which, it’s not like every second person would’ve been asking whether Mary was Immaculately Conceived or what have you. Same reason the fates of most of the Apostles, and their deaths, weren’t recorded in Acts, even though many if not most of 'em would’ve died by the time it was written. Just not something people wanted desperately to know.

The NT writers focused on absolute bedrock essentials, not on the things which although important were a bit more esoteric. In other words it was difficult enough getting people to believe in Christ himself let alone if they’d added all these things about His mother being Immaculate and Assumed and so on.

 

[apophasis]

What do you suppose is the Oral Tradition? Do you imagine people whispering secrets to each other? No - the Oral Tradition is the art, liturgy, poetry, music, sermons, wisdom sayings, rituals, and so on - it is the entire collection of all of this stuff, that has been handed down to us via the culture of the Catholic Church, and safeguarded by the Bishops, since the time of the Apostles.

The doctrine of oral tradition specifies that a plenary revelation of all Christian doctrine was made by Christ to the Apostles and by them communicated to the Church, partly in their writings and partly by oral instructions. To prove that any doctrine is of divine authority, it must be proved that THEY (the Apostles) taught it, and that it was always and everywhere held by the Church.

This, my friend, would then challenge even all doctrines held and taught exclusively by the western Church.

But as for the IC and sinlessness of Mary, a historical study of the doctrines reveals that they were developed over time and that they were based not on divine revelation but the subjective reasoning of mere men. All extra-biblical Marian doctrines are based on the subjective (human) reasoning that since the Son is revealed in Scripture as “this,” then His mother must be “that.”

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas both held, logically, that if Mary were not a partaker of the sin and apostasy of man, she could not be a partaker of Christ’s redemption. And even up to the time of the Council of Trent those Marian doctrines remained undecided (which would not be the case if they were truly known to be taught from the beginning by the Apostles). The Dominicans and Franciscans opposed each other on the issues and the controversy continued after the Council until 1854 when Pope Pius IX had the doctrine of the IC declared via a papal bull.

One cannot argue against the fact that Mary’s IC and sinlessness are post-Apostolic, time-developed doctrines based on human reasoning - not divine revelation. Unless you can show me which 2nd century “CF” actually taught them and claimed to have received them directly from one or more of the Apostles. Can you?

 

[apophasis]

I also believe that the Apostles had great reverence for Mary (out of respect for Jesus) and would have kept any information about her very secret for her own safety. If they knew things about her, they would not have written them in order to spare her the scourge of Saul, and other persecutors.

You may believe this but you “know” nothing of the sort. If that was truly the case then NONE of the writers of the Gospel accounts would have even mentioned her by name or given ANY detailed information about her, such as her husband’s name, children, relatives and even the town in which she resided. This information would have been far more dangerous than revealing that she was immaculately conceived.

Luke 1:5-6

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

How can one be a sinner, and still be righteous before God, and blameless?

The phrase “righteous before God” is explained right there in the same sentence: “walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” It has nothing to do with inherent righteousness or sinlessness. In fact, the very commandments and ordinances they blamelessly walked in constantly reminded them of their ever present sinfulness (see Heb. 10:1-3).

How were Enoch and Elijah taken up into heaven, where no sin can dwell, if they were under sin?

How can you question God’s Word concerning this? Both Enoch and Elijah were men of faith (i.e., men who believed God’s Word) and therefore their sins were subsequently put upon Christ and were forgiven, redeemed, justified and sanctified in Him.

After Paul writes (by the Holy Spirit) that both Jews and Gentiles are “under sin,” he speaks of another righteousness: “the righteousness of God.” Not an inherent righteousness of men but that which is obtained “through faith in Jesus Christ for all those (“under sin”) who believe…being justified AS A GIFT by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:22-24).

In Rom. 3:25 Paul writes that according to His forbearance God “passed over sins previously committed.” That is, He passed over (“winked at”) the sins of O.T. men of faith, like Enoch and Elijah who were taken up alive, because their sins would be once for all dealt with at the cross of Christ along with the rest of the world’s sins (Jn. 1:29). Their righteousness was also gifted (reckoned) based on faith - not according to their personal performance.

If this is true, that he is not one of Adam’s race, then He is not really a descendent of David. he is not really born of Mary. If he is not born according to the flesh, in the line of David, he is not really a descendant of David. But we know otherwise.

I said He is not one of Adam’s fallen posterity. Certainly you’re not advocating that Jesus was born with “original sin” and that Joseph was His biological father. The Son received His humanity through Mary but not His sinlessness.

Jesus is a descendant and legally of the royal lineage of David via adoption and virgin birth as divinely revealed in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.

This is why Catholics believe that Mary was preserved from original sin, so that she could truly contribute materially to the Son of David.

That may be what Catholics assume and believe but it’s nowhere taught in Scripture; nor is there any proof that such a teaching was orally passed down to the Church by the Apostles.

The only NT writing that was done after the death of Mary is Revelation, where “a woman clothed with the sun” is mentioned. She is the one who gives birth to the saviour. Of all the Apostles, it seems to me that John, who took Mary into his home from the time of the crucifixion would be the most likely to know.

I have posted on other threads showing that Rev. 12 is not referring directly to Mary but the nation of Israel (the descriptions of the “woman” in the text bear this out). And going along with your logic of John’s intimate relationship with Mary, you would then expect that he would have included her IC and sinlessness in his Gospel account or Epistles. But no, nothing! Not even Rev. 12 states that the “woman” herself was immaculately conceived and sinless, but that she gave birth to a man child who is to (future, not now) rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and He was caught up to God and to His throne. The child, not the woman, was caught up to God and His throne. In Rev. 12 the woman herself is never seen in heaven but resides on earth.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

The doctrine of oral tradition specifies that a plenary revelation of all Christian doctrine was made by Christ to the Apostles and by them communicated to the Church, partly in their writings and partly by oral instructions.** To prove that any doctrine is of divine authority, it must be proved that THEY (the Apostles) taught it, and that it was always and everywhere held by the Church. **

This assertion is false.
The apostles never taught the developed doctrine of the Trinity, nor do they call God a “Trinity” in the Bible, yet the Trinity doctrine as it developed in the Church IS a revealed doctrine of God. The “building blocks” of the doctrine are in the New Testament Scriptures and in the teachings of the early church fathers. The full-blown Doctrine of the Trinity with it’s explanations, is a development of the biblical and traditional revelation, a CORRECT development.

The same goes for the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
The building blocks for the doctrine are contained in the Holy Bible, most especially Genesis 3:15 where God promised that the Woman of prophecy, the mother of the Seed, would herself be at Enmity with Satan, an Enmity which God Himself PUTS in her.
Thus, the Mother of the Redeemer never had any connection to the Devil, not even through original Sin. God gave her soul sanctifying grace from the moment of conception. The full-blown doctriine of the Immaculate Conception took many centuries to develop, but it is the CORRECT interpretation of the scriptural data, no matter how long it took for it to develop and crystallize.

There was much debate, pro and con, in the Catholic Church about the Immaculate Conception for many centuries, with Holy people taking both sides of the issue. But the issue was finally settled and the correct view, her Immaculate Conception, is held by the church today as official teaching.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[apophasis]

The doctrine of oral tradition specifies that a plenary revelation of all Christian doctrine was made by Christ to the Apostles and by them communicated to the Church, partly in their writings and partly by oral instructions.** To prove that any doctrine is of divine authority, it must be proved that THEY (the Apostles) taught it, and that it was always and everywhere held by the Church. **

This assertion is false.
The apostles never taught the developed doctrine of the Trinity, nor do they call God a “Trinity” in the Bible, yet the Trinity doctrine as it developed in the Church IS a revealed doctrine of God. The “building blocks” of the doctrine are in the New Testament Scriptures and in the teachings of the early church fathers. The full-blown Doctrine of the Trinity with it’s explanations, is a development of the biblical and traditional revelation, a CORRECT development.

The “doctrine” of the Trinity was developed based on the authority of Divinely written truth: The N.T. Scriptures. The Scriptures themselves reveal literally that the Father is God, the Son is God and the H.S. is God. Within Scripture they are addressed as three separate Persons, yet all three are called God. The veracity of the doctrine is based on inspired writings and Apostolic authority. It was the study of these holy writings that the doctrine was formed and accepted as true.

This, however, is not true of either the IC or the sinlessness of Mary. They’re both based on man’s subjective reasoning subsequent to the Apostolic age. Unless you can prove differently. But even you agree that the IC was a controversy within even the Latin Church for centuries, settled only by a Papal Bull. Not on any Scriptural proof or that it was taught by the Apostles from the beginning. So they’re not really based on “oral tradition” but the authority of a nineteenth century Pope and positive, public sentiments.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This, however, is not true of either the IC or the sinlessness of Mary. They’re both based on man’s subjective reasoning subsequent to the Apostolic age. Unless you can prove differently. But even you agree that the IC was a controversy within even the Latin Church for centuries, settled only by a Papal Bull. Not on any Scriptural proof or that it was taught by the Apostles from the beginning. So they’re not really based on “oral tradition” but the authority of a nineteenth century Pope and positive, public sentiments.

They are based on Apostolic Tradition. The unwritten Word of God handed down to us by the Apostles and to their sucessors. There are many Patristic sources that the Early Church believe that Mary was sinless. Even the Orthodox acknowledges that.

The Gospel itself does not contain all the things Jesus had done. How can you be so sure that Mary was not sinless was taught when in fact history shows that the Fathers of the Church believed it.

You are also going on your assumptions because you assert that since this doctrine is not in the Bible it must not be true. Someone already pointed out to you the Trinity so I won’t get into that. Instead Jay will handle it.

I don’t think the Early Church Fathers invited new doctrines of the faith. Since the Apostles made it clear there should no no strange doctrine.

The belief that Mary is sinless and that she was immaculate is based on the Gabriel greeting to Mary. I think you already know about this.

Gabriel said, Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!"

In Latin it is, gratia plena.

The response stated that the rendering full of grace occurs in the Douay Confraternity Version, Knox’s version, and St. Jerome’s Vulgate. It then quoted the following sources for the meaning of the Greek word (kecharitomene) and it’s root charitoo:

Charitoo: akin to charis, to endow with charis, primarily signified to make graceful or gracious, and came to denote, in Hellenistic Greek, to cause to find favour, Luke 1:28, “highly favoured” (margin, "endued with grace") . . . Grace implies more than favour; grace is a free gift, favour may be deserved or gained" (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W.E. Vine).

Highly favoured" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’" (Word Pictures in the New Testament, A.T. Robertson).]

It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace (Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Blass & DeBrunner).]

This is the Catholic position, which as you can see is not only perfectly allowable, but probably is the more accurate. “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))

Source; dtl.org/catholicism/emails/mary/grace.htm

 

[apophasis]

This is the Catholic position, which as you can see is not only perfectly allowable, but probably is the more accurate. “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)

Notice the date? And on what does he base his assertion??

 

[rlg94086]

Notice the date? And on what does he base his assertion??

I noticed the date - approx. 360 years after Christ’s death on the cross. A heck of a lot closer to the time of the Apostles than you or me. I would trust his understanding of their teaching much more than yours.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Notice the date? And on what does he base his assertion??

From the Apostles or their Successors.

 

[jmcrae]

Notice the date?

23 years before we knew for certain which books comprise the New Testament.

And on what does he base his assertion??

The very same Holy Tradition that showed us which books belonged in the New Testament, 23 years later.

 

[apophasis]

I noticed the date - approx. 360 years after Christ’s death on the cross. A heck of a lot closer to the time of the Apostles than you or me. I would trust his understanding of their teaching much more than yours.

Why? So you accept EVERYTHING he taught?

 

[apophasis]

From the Apostles or their Successors.

Which Apostle does he mention taught the doctrine verbally? Does he actually quote an immediate “successor?”