Immaculate Conception of Mary

[MrPolo]

[SIZEWhat does that mean?[/SIZE] :wve:

It means whenever you see someone deny Tradition because they don't see "why this matters" (in this thread or others), they are using their own person ability to understand to determine what is God's revelation.

 

[winsome]

My husband wrote the following article and I have his permission to post all of it.

I think the article does a good job to explain.

It certainly does do a good job to explain, an excellent one. Please thank your husband for this. I've saved a copy for future reference.

 

[D'Ann]

It certainly does do a good job to explain, an excellent one. Please thank your husband for this. I've saved a copy for future reference.

Thanks on his behalf.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thanks on his behalf.

Greetings. We are having an interesting discussion on the GT board concerning "Catholicism" if thou art interested

gotta recharge my Reps.......

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7213672
Is Catholicism the same Church that the Apostles set up

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm not sure those posting of late have read the opening post or realize the point of this thread. Okay for discussions to evolve into different things, but below is the issue I raised.

My continuing studies revealed this interesting comment made in one of the Catechism companion books that one of my Catholic teachers graciously gave to me. It's in the chapter on the Communion of Saints and the discussion turns briefly to Mary and the Immaculate Conception. In the middle of page 238, I read this remarkable sentence: "This doctrine is not expressly dealt with anywhere in the Bible, nor was it preached by the Apostles, and for many centuries it was not mentioned by the Church." (The Handbook of Catholic Faith, page 238)

Now, a bit later, the authors continue, "Gradually as the idea of this dogma began to develop among the faithful, theologians submitted the point to close examination and finally, the view then generally prevailing was formally pronounced as dogma of the Church by His Holiness Pope Pius IX in 1854." (ditto).

This, IMHO, might suggest that the Catholic apologetic that it is Apostolic, was ALWAYS taught by the Church, is biblical and firmly rooted in the Catholic Denomination's own "Fathers" is perhaps not even supported by the Catholic Church? At least not for this particular new, unique dogma of the CC.


I just happened upon that in my studies and thought it might be interesting to discuss.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah



.

I realize some Catholics teach that all Catholic teachings are Apostolic but not necessary Apostolic, always taught but not necessarily always taught, Scriptural but not necessarily expressly. Some Catholics speak of how the dogma has ALWAYS been taught but then that it has developed and evolved so much that there is no indication of it for many Centuries. These dogmas are often the ones that the RCC holds uniquely (such as this one), ie not embraced as such by the EO or OO or any Protestant group or any other than the CC.


My OWN PERSONAL perspective on this is that the RCC is identical to every other denomination in this regard. Ideas arise, evolve, come, go. One may CLAIM they were "taught by the Apostles" but when one admits there's zero evidence that any of the 13 even mentioned it, well.... Or one can CLAIM that it was "always taught by the Church" but when the same one admits that there is actually zero evidence that it was taught for centuries, well.... One can claim that it was a part of some "deposit of faith" from at least 31 AD on, but when the same one admits that there is zero evidence that such was even known (much less embraced) for centuries, well.... Here's what I PERSONALLY SUSPECT: Issues arose among Christians and in the life of the church. Some theological, some ecclesiastical, some moral, some proceedural. People discussed these matters. They likely studied them (including but probably not limited to Scripture), prayed about them, probably argued about them. IN TIME, some of these issues formed a bit of a consensus (at least in a geographical area or among a subgroup of Christians). IN TIME, some of these issues came to be viewed as the embraced opinion, IN TIME some of these came to be viewed as embraced doctrine, IN TIME some of these things came to be dogma. MOST things prior to 1054 are the same in the EO and CC, those after are not. Most of the things after 1054 are unique to a single denomination - the CC. Now, one might surely look upon this and believe as an article of faith: "God's leadership and providence prevailed, God lead us to THIS particular conclusion - and thus we accept this not simply as OUR conclusion and consensus but ALSO as God's Truth." We may or may not agree that such is the case, but such seems reasonable faith to me - one can embrace the PROCESS and the ultimate CONCLUSION as God's leading. But all that is radically different than insisting that the Catholic Denomination has ALWAYS had this specific "deposit of faith" and such comes directly and solely from the 13 Apostles and the instructions of them by Jesus - both known and secretely/unrecorded, and all the Catholic Church as done is finally to tell the world when a sufficient crisis/issue/problem/challenge arose that demanded that it finally tell it to the masses. That's MY opinion on what is most likely.


I don't deny that Catholics can look to some Scriptures as it uniquely and alone has interpreted them, to its own denominational "Fathers" and the quotes from them that it has chosen as it uniquely interprets them, and to its own unique denominational teachers and conclude: "This idea has evolved among us in this way." I'm just not sure that's the same thing as saying: "The Bible clearly teaches this, all 13 Apostles taught this, all Christians have always taught this, it is one of the articles of the Deposit of Faith." Calvinists can point to OSAS and point to some Scriptures as it uniquely and alone has interpreted them, to its own denominational "Father" and quoteas from them that it has chosen as it uniquely interprets them, and to its own unique denominational teachers and conclude: "This idea evolved among us in this way." We can discuss whether that evolution and conclusion are correct or not, of couse. But that's VERY different than the Calvinist insisting, "The Bible clearly teaches this, all 13 Apostles taught THIS, all Christians have always taught THIS, it is one of the articles of The Deposit of Faith that has been in place since 31 AD at the very latest." Perhaps this is a more signifcant point when we have a DOGMA unique to a single denomination, such as the Immaculate Conception is the to CC.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[D'Ann]

Greetings. We are having an interesting discussion on the GT board concerning "Catholicism" if thou art interested

gotta recharge my Reps.......

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7213672
Is Catholicism the same Church that the Apostles set up

Thanks...times like this I really wish my husband was on the board and explaining the Catholic faith... he is sooo much better with sharing than me.

I'll take a look at the thread, I pray it does not make my blood boil.

 

[D'Ann]

Josiah,

You are entitled to your opinion, but there is evidence to prove otherwise as I posted in this thread that did address the OP. You probably should read what I posted... if you haven't I mean.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary has always been believed and taught throughout history.

It was always a teaching based on Tradition. Later it became doctrine and then it was finalized as dogma.

God's peace

Deb

 

[D'Ann]

I hope the following information will help to bring more understanding regarding Mary.

Immaculate Conception

tt=63
The doctrine


In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." "The Blessed Virgin Mary..."


The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body. "...in the first instance of her conception..."


The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul. "...was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin..."


The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death. "...by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race."


The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.
Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception." Proof from Scripture

Genesis 3:15


No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin. Luke 1:28


The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma. Other texts


From the texts Proverbs 8 and Ecclesiasticus 24 (which exalt the Wisdom of God and which in the liturgy are applied to Mary, the most beautiful work of God's Wisdom), or from the Canticle of Canticles (4:7, "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee"), no theological conclusion can be drawn. These passages, applied to the Mother of God, may be readily understood by those who know the privilege of Mary, but do not avail to prove the doctrine dogmatically, and are therefore omitted from the Constitution "Ineffabilis Deus". For the theologian it is a matter of conscience not to take an extreme position by applying to a creature texts which might imply the prerogatives of God. Proof from Tradition


In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.

• Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
• In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).
• St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew).

But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science. If we were to attempt to set forth the full doctrine of the Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which includes particularly the implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages. In the testimony of the Fathers two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22). Mary as the second Eve


This celebrated comparison between Eve, while yet immaculate and incorrupt -- that is to say, not subject to original sin -- and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:

• Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 100),
• Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.22.4),
• Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ 17),
• Julius Firmicus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
• Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses 12.29),
• Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
• Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
• Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).

The absolute purity of Mary


Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.

• The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
• Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
• Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
• Maximus of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
• Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
• In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (On Nature and Grace 36).
• Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
• it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
• she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
• she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
• when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
• The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
• To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
• Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the "Revelations" of Catherine Emmerich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary.
From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity from sin in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception. The conception of St. John the Baptist


A comparison with the conception of Christ and that of St. John may serve to light both on the dogma and on the reasons which led the Greeks to celebrate at an early date the Feast of the Conception of Mary.

• The conception of the Mother of God was beyond all comparison more noble than that of St. John the Baptist, whilst it was immeasurably beneath that of her Divine Son.
• The soul of the precursor was not preserved immaculate at its union with the body, but was sanctified either shortly after conception from a previous state of sin, or through the presence of Jesus at the Visitation.
• Our Lord, being conceived by the Holy Ghost, was, by virtue of his miraculous conception, ipso facto free from the taint of original sin.

Of these three conceptions the Church celebrates feasts. The Orientals have a Feast of the Conception of St. John the Baptist (23 September), which dates back to the fifth century; it is thus older than the Feast of the Conception of Mary, and, during the Middle Ages, was kept also by many Western dioceses on 24 September. The Conception of Mary is celebrated by the Latins on 8 December; by the Orientals on 9 December; the Conception of Christ has its feast in the universal calendar on 25 March. In celebrating the feast of Mary's Conception the Greeks of old did not consider the theological distinction of the active and the passive conceptions, which was indeed unknown to them. They did not think it absurd to celebrate a conception which was not immaculate, as we see from the Feast of the Conception of St. John. They solemnized the Conception of Mary, perhaps because, according to the "Proto-evangelium" of St. James, it was preceded by miraculous events (the apparition of an angel to Joachim, etc.), similar to those which preceded the conception of St. John, and that of our Lord Himself. Their object was less the purity of the conception than the holiness and heavenly mission of the person conceived. In the Office of 9 December, however, Mary, from the time of her conception, is called beautiful, pure, holy, just, etc., terms never used in the Office of 23 September (sc. of St. John the Baptist). The analogy of St. John's sanctification may have given rise to the Feast of the Conception of Mary. If it was necessary that the precursor of the Lord should be so pure and "filled with the Holy Ghost" even from his mother's womb, such a purity was assuredly not less befitting His Mother. The moment of St. John's sanctification is by later writers thought to be the Visitation ("the infant leaped in her womb"), but the angel's words (Luke 1:15) seem to indicate a sanctification at the conception. This would render the origin of Mary more similar to that of John. And if the Conception of John had its feast, why not that of Mary? Proof from reason

There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on earth to destroy. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-Anselmus (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence; God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her. Again it is remarked that a peculiar privilege was granted to the prophet Jeremiah and to St. John the Baptist. They were sanctified in their mother's womb, because by their preaching they had a special share in the work of preparing the way for Christ. Consequently some much higher prerogative is due to Mary. (A treatise of P. Marchant, claiming for St. Joseph also the privilege of St. John, was placed on the Index in 1833.) Scotus says that "the perfect Mediator must, in some one case, have done the work of mediation most perfectly, which would not be unless there was some one person at least, in whose regard the wrath of God was anticipated and not merely appeased."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thanks...times like this I really wish my husband was on the board and explaining the Catholic faith... he is sooo much better with sharing than me.

I'll take a look at the thread, I pray it does not make my blood boil.

Greeetings! Nah it won't...People just have misconceptions of both the Orthodox and RCC......no worries.......

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

“Nothing short of outright explicit Biblical evidence will convince many hard-core Fundamentalists of the veracity of the Immaculate Conception. For such people only direct and plain Scriptural support will suffice to convince them – particularly for any doctrine that is distinctively Catholic.”

Even direct and plain Scriptural support doesn’t suffice.

You can’t get more plain and direct than “This is my body” , but that doesn’t prevent disagreement on that particular belief.

Perhaps there was disagreements on the book of Revelation also?

1 corin 11:26 For as often ever ye may be eating the bread, this, and the drink-cup ye may be drinking, the death of the Lord ye are according-messaging until which ever He may be coming/elqh <2064> (5632) [Revelation 19:11]

Reve 19:11 And I saw the heaven having be opened and behold! A horse, white and the One sitting on it/him being called Faithful and True and in justice He is judging and is battling.

 

[MrPolo]

Some Catholics speak of how the dogma has ALWAYS been taught but then that it has developed and evolved so much that there is no indication of it for many Centuries.

Well, there's certainly indications of it from the beginning. But I'm not sure what Catholics you are talking about---the Church is fairly clear that doctrines can develop. Cardinal Newman's treatment on this is probably the most famous. According to what I know of the story, what was instrumental in his conversion is how Marian doctrines were taught the same way globally during times in which that message would have been difficult to transmit geographically if it was made up by someone apart from the universal Church. (that and probably the lack of a "Against Marian Heresies" or such document to deny the teachings as divine).

p.s. if there are denominations that also have development of doctrine, I am glad to hear that.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah,

The Immaculate Conception of Mary has always been believed and taught throughout history.

Catholic Catechism # 491 (where this dogma is defined):
The Immaculate Conception of Mary

"Through the centuries, the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. This is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pious IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary ws, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of the almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of orignal sin."



My freind and sister in Christ...

1. I'm not sure the CC agrees with you that it as "always been believed and taught." I think it believes that it "ever more became aware" of it.

2. Since the EO and OO don't have this dogma, your point raises an interesting subject: Obviously the Apostolic Church can entirely forget something it has always taught. If that's true for the EO and OO, one is left to wonder if it is also true for the CC.

3. As I re-read that article, I'll look to see evidence that "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of the almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of orignal sin" being stated from 31 AD at the latest, on.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[D'Ann]

Hi CJ,

It just dawned on me, I'm thinking we are talking about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but we are talking about the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

So, which teaching are we going over?

Sorry for being confused. (it's a senior moment).

 

[D'Ann]

Okay... sorry... this paragraph below needs some clarifying.

3. As I re-read that article, I'll look to see evidence that "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of the almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of orignal sin" being stated from 31 AD at the latest, on.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is our Lord and Savior.

Jesus is our Lord and Savior and Mary is His mother...

It seems that we are just going around in circles and I think we must be misunderstanding each other. I'm a bit new to sharing my Catholic faith in this kind of situation and I'm not quite sure if I'm very good at it. LOL hehe

I'll ask my husband to help me explain the Catholic teachings on the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Although, the above articles already do a great job and even explain and answer your above post as well.

God bless

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Catholic Catechism # 491 (where this dogma is defined):
The Immaculate Conception of Mary

"Through the centuries, the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. This is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pious IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of the almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of orignal sin."

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is our Lord and Savior.

I never said it did...

I just quoted, verbatim, exactly what the official Catholic Catechism states, including the definition of the unique Catholic Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

You stated that, "The Immaculate Conception of Mary has always been believed and taught throughout history." I simply contrasted what you said to what the Catholic Church says that the Catholic Church, "became ever more aware of it." And I noted that for your statement to be true, then the dogma would need to be shown as having always been taught, throughout history."


Of course, the issue before us in this thread is not if this specific dogma is correct or not (and CERTAINLY not if it is sincerely believed) but your point (so often heard from our blessed Catholic brothers and sisters) that these dogmas have "always been believed and thought throughout history" and that they are from the 13 Apostles.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[D'Ann]

Thanks Josiah. I'm just sooo bad at apologetics. Thank you for your patience with me. I need to get some sleep and take a break.

May our Lord Jesus bless you,

Deb

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I never said it did...


I just quoted, verbatim, exactly what the official Catholic Catechism states, including the definition of the unique Catholic Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.


You stated that, "The Immaculate Conception of Mary has always been believed and taught throughout history." I simply contrasted what you said to what the Catholic Church says that the Catholic Church, "became ever more aware of it." And I noted that for your statement to be true, then the dogma would need to be shown as having always been taught, throughout history."


Of course, the issue before us in this thread is not if this specific dogma is correct or not (and CERTAINLY not if it is sincerely believed) but your point (so often heard from our blessed Catholic brothers and sisters) that these dogmas have "always been believed and thought throughout history" and that they are from the 13 Apostles.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah


.

Thanks Josiah. I'm just sooo bad at apologetics. Thank you for your patience with me. I need to get some sleep and take a break.

May our Lord Jesus bless you,

Deb

I hope you'll return to our discussion soon!


Pax!


- Josiah





.