Hi and where is MARY called IMMACULATE in nthe bible ?
I have not seen a Greek word in the bible and share with us where it is found ?
dan p
That is a dangerous question, because one could also ask: "Where does the Bible give a Divinely authorised list of:
- 27
- named
- God-breathed
- Scriptural
- books
- to be read in the Church
- and by Christian groups
- and by Christian individual
- as sacred
- and canonical
- in all the Churches of the world
- for all time to come
- as a supreme guide
- in all matters
- of faith
- and of morals ?
There is no one Scripture that says most, let alone all, of these things. The Bible as known to and endorsed by Jesus included Genesis & 2 Chronicles - not the Gospels, Romans, Galatians, Acts or Revelation, nor any other NT book. The phrase "new testament" never refers, in either Testament, to a collection of books - let alone to the books embraced by all Evangelical Christians as the God-breathed Word of God.
The Evangelical devotion to the NT, however admirable, is not founded on any texts of Scripture. If Evangelical polemicists were consistent with the principles they normally act on when arguing against (say) the canonicity of "the books called Apocrypha", they would point out the differences between the NT canon-lists, and argue from them that there is no firm basis in Christian tradition for the New Testament of books - a thing which, if Scripture is heeded, can only be a "Catholic heresy and invention".
The very same Church that in the 4th and 5th centuries drew up what is the familiar 27-book canon of the NT, was at the very same time plunged in all sorts of things that, from a strong Protestant POV, are often regarded as (deeply unChristian) superstitions. If that is so, how can a Church tainted with such anti-Christian corruptions possibly be a reliable witness to the true canon of the NT ? Surely, all things considered, it is far more probable that the 27-book canon of books with those 16 features is at best a corruption that needs to be cast aside, & at worst a delusion of the evil one.
In saying such things, I am merely applying some stock Evangelical responses to Catholic things they reject, to something they, and Catholics, share. Since the 1960s, of course, much of the old bitterness has evaporated; and that, surely, is sheer gain. To renew it would be entirely wrong; there is no blessing in the Bible for those who foster strife.
There is no firm basis in the Bible for a "New Testament" with all 16 of those features. Its basis is a combination of Christian tradition, and a drawing by the Churches and their principal teachers of theological conclusions. The case for having a NT in the Bible is based on a combination of Christian theological argument & inference, Christian tradition, Christian piety, Church authority, and ideas culled from the Bible.
Just like many other doctrines. And exactly the same is true of doctrines rejected by some, many, or all Evangelicals. Those Christians who accept doctrines that are based on a combination of Christian theological argument and inference, Christian tradition, Christian piety, Church authority, and ideas culled from the Bible, cannot with any justice complain of Catholics for holding doctrines founded on a
combination of Christian theological argument & inference, Christian tradition, Christian piety, Church authority, and ideas culled from the Bible. The two sets of Christians build on similar foundations - the pre-Reformation Churches make that explicit, whereas Evangelical Protestantism tends not to.
And the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception is one of those doctrines. Just like certain doctrines which are welcomed and embraced by evangelical Christians, this Catholic dogma cannot be based on any one Bible passage, nor on Scripture alone. What is claimed for it is, that it is present in the Apostolic Deposit of Faith, and that - as with some other doctrines, that are received as true by Catholics & also by others - it came to be recognised as true and as Apostolic, not immediately, but over the passage of time. Its definition as a dogma in 1854 was only the latest stage of discussion, disagreement, and discernment: the doctrine existed long before 1854, but not as a dogma. Another way of describing it, is to say that it marked a step in Rome's departure from Scriptural truth. That is one way of looking at, as is the other - neither can proven wrong, because the accepter and the rejecter of the dogma agree on the historical facts: the disagreent is not about "What happened ?", but, about "What judgement of the thoughtful, well-informed & judicious mind is an appropriate reaction to these events ?". IOW, different people approach the dogma with different "pre-conceptions"; & their pre-conceptions are the "filter", or (to borrow from Star Trek TNG) the "visor", through which they see, and take in, their impressions of what happened. These "filters" both allow us to see, and, hinder us from seeing perfectly. They are one of the reasons that, in this world, we only ever "see in part".
That is
not an attempt to argue for the truth of the dogma, let alone to justify it. It is an attempt only to give a slight outline of why it is accepted as credible. A reasonably adequate outline of why it is accepted by the CC as having been revealed by God, would need a long essay, at least. But equally, I think Catholics have a serious obligation not to make the disagreements between the CC & Evangelicalism any greater or sharper than they are already. Not in order to deceive - which is sometimes a concern - but so as to avoid needless, and needlessly hostile, disagreement.
