Immaculate Conception of Mary

[MamaZ]

Hmm, no role for the serpent, no role for Eve. Let's just remove anything we need to make things make sense in our view.

Each man is responsible for their own sin. Ever heard the phrase just say no?

 

[MamaZ]

It is through the Word made flesh we are saved.....

It is through the shed blood of Christ that we are saved and being born again of the Spirit. For Christs kingdom is a Spiritual kingdom and not a fleshly..

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

For Christs kingdom is a Spiritual kingdom and not a fleshly..

Well, if thats all it is, why were Adam and eve created with flesh, why was Christ born with flesh and then resurrected with flesh and why are we to receive our bodies (flesh) again?


pax

 

[Photini]

It is through the shed blood of Christ that we are saved and being born again of the Spirit. For Christs kingdom is a Spiritual kingdom and not a fleshly..

So, you do not believe the Incarnation has any impact on salvation at all?

 

[MamaZ]

I believe that the word was made flesh and He dwelt among the people back then. I believe Christ was born to die for His sheep. He came to earth to be the ultimate sacrafice for sin Once for all...

 

[Photini]

So, you do not believe the Incarnation had any particular effect upon mankind? But only Christ's death did?

 

[MamaZ]

Of course His birth had an effect on mankind.. But it was not his birth that paid for the sins of men. It was His life and death and Ressurection..

 

[winsome]

It is through the shed blood of Christ that we are saved and being born again of the Spirit. For Christs kingdom is a Spiritual kingdom and not a fleshly..

It is through the shed blood of Christ that we are redeemed. We are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It is through the shed blood of Christ that we are redeemed. We are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ.

Redeemed.......blood.......Sing.........

Corinthians 7:23 Of value/honor ye are bought/hgorasqhte <59>, no be ye becoming! bond-servents of men.

Reve 5:9 And They are singing a Song, new, saying: "Worthy Thou are to be receiving the scrollet and to open-up the seals of it. That Thou was slain/slaughtered and did purchase/hgorasaV <59> to the God [*of us] in the blood of Thee, out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation". [Hosea 13:14]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So, you do not believe the Incarnation had any particular effect upon mankind? But only Christ's death did?

I do. I just don't see any dogmatic substantiation that the conception of Mary was "immaculate" But that's not the issue here: The issue is whether this DOGMA is biblical, apostolic, a part of the "Deposit of Faith," and "always taught by the Catholic Church."





.

 

[Photini]

I do. I just don't see any dogmatic substantiation that the conception of Mary was "immaculate" But that's not the issue here: The issue is whether this DOGMA is biblical, apostolic, a part of the "Deposit of Faith," and "always taught by the Catholic Church."





.

Sorry, CJ. I got off topic and started talking about the Incarnation of Christ....which had a HUGE impact on creation, but it doesn't seem MamaZ thinks so. I was trying to pick her brain to understand what she thinks. She seems to go out of her way to disagree with anything that anyone coming from an Apostolic tradition says...even to the point of (in another thread) denying the Nicene Creed where it says that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is "begotten of the Father before all ages."

As for the Immaculate Conception...as you might guess, that dogma does not exist in the EO or OO churches. No matter how hard I've tried, I just cannot understand why there is a need for such a dogma. But then again, the EO and OO have a differing point of view on the Ancestral Sin than the west has.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As for the Immaculate Conception...as you might guess, that dogma does not exist in the EO or OO churches. No matter how hard I've tried, I just cannot understand why there is a need for such a dogma. But then again, the EO and OO have a differing point of view on the Ancestral Sin than the west has.

As I know....

Actually, Lutherans are closer to the RCC on this point than Orthodox are, as far as I currently understand. We don't deny this dogma, we don't don't see it as Scriptural (or even Traditional) or why it even matters.

Except for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (where I have a personal concern about Our Lady's heart), none of the Marian dogmas (some shared by the EO, some not) "bother" me. I tend to see them as amazingly moot. Much of the "difference" between Lutherans and Catholics is we simply see them as going too far, insisting (powerfully and dogmatically) on things best left to spiritually or even alone. My years in the CC powerfully convinced me of the sincerity and devotion Catholics have for Our Lady - and I carried that with me (hook, line and sinker) to the Lutheran church where it also exists, although more as a matter of the heart than dogma. I have two Catechisms on the shelf above my desk, one Lutheran and the other Catholic. The first has 8 pages in it, the second 800 hundred. It's not an "apples to apples" comparison - but it DOES point out a difference among us. Lutherans are not as apt as some Protestants to shout "that's heresy!" but we are apt to say, "is that dogma?" When I "left" the Catholic Church (a very sad and painful thing for me) and said my "good-byes" to my friends and teachers there, noting I was going to associate with Lutherans (I had been going to both churches for several months), one of my teachers said, "Well, you know, Lutherans are just simple Catholics - The Catholic Church without all that stuff that makes Catholics, Catholics." I'm actually not 100% sure that's wrong. For all the "hits" I get here at CF (and I suspect staff is kept busy with Reports filed by Catholics), the reality is there is not a Protestant here who is more Catholic than I am, nor who is so often on record here as expressing my profound love and respect for the RCC, thankful for all the blessings I received there, who so often states that I regard Her as valid and good, I regard Her ministers and ministries as valid and good, I regard nothing She teaches as heretical or even unbiblical, that I pray daily for all God's blessings to Her, Her ministers and specifically Holy Father, that I regard all my Catholics as my FULL, UNseparated brothers and sisters in Christ. I agree with Her teachings at least 95% of the time (which is why when I do research on something, I pull down my Catholic Catechism before I look at my Lutheran one), but ooooooooohhhh, how some Catholics here ESPECIALLY don't like it if I express some interest in one of those 5%. Even if (as in the Marian dogmas) I don't say they are wrong - I just raise some questions.


Sorry for the personal interlude, back to the issue before us....






.

 

[MrPolo]

I do. I just don't see any dogmatic substantiation that the conception of Mary was "immaculate" But that's not the issue here: The issue is whether this DOGMA is biblical, apostolic, a part of the "Deposit

Hopefully you understand by now in your commendable research into Catholicism, that a dogma needn't be "explicitly" stated during an apostles' life, as is the case with Trinity or Incarnation's current form of dogma. Like the handbook says, there is no "explicit" reference to the Immaculate Conception. But of course the suggestion in Scripture of Mary as new Eve, glorified fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant, and figure of the stainless bride of Christ (the Church), are certainly Scriptural and part of the single deposit of faith. Perhaps you do not recognize this as we do, but if you want to see as a Catholic sees, then that is the case. God's revelation has the incredible capacity to unfold in the life of the Church (like how the canon of Scripture was identified over the centuries because of a book's recognized use in apostolic churches). There are a number of good books on the subject that can be far more enlightening to you than just reading a sentence in the Handbook stating it is not "explicit" in apostolic times.

Also, we do not put the cart before the horse when it comes to God's revelation and ever say anything like "I don't see why this is important" of His revelation. The Church first receives dogma from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, apart from anyone's immediate capacity to understand it.

Recommended reading (if you seriously want to know "why" it is considered important or true or how it came to be revealed)
Our Lady and the Church by Hugh Rahner, S.J. is well respected.
Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought by Luigi Gambero has also come recommended.
Some good resources over at a short Catholic.com forums thread.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Also, we do not put the cart before the horse when it comes to God's revelation and ever say anything like "I don't see why this is important" of His revelation. The Church first receives dogma from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, apart from anyone's immediate capacity to understand it.

What does that mean?

 

[D'Ann]

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.

THE GRACEFUL BRIDGE​

HOW COMMONLY HELD CHRISTIAN BELIEFS EXPLAIN AND DEFEND THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION​

Most Christians, both Catholic and Protestant alike, share certain presuppositions relative to the nature of sin and its damaging effects on our relationship with God. Conversely, there is a disconnect between Catholics and Protestants when it comes to the Catholic belief that Mary was conceived and born without the stain of Original Sin, otherwise known as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

While it appears that the gap between the two opposing sides of this controversy is insurmountable, it must be noted that the presuppositions held in common actually provide the foundational principles that can build a bridge between the two.

Before we explore what these presuppositions are &#8211; and how they can be applied in a manner that reconciles two seemingly disparate perspectives &#8211; we must first define the nature of the controversy itself.

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 &#8211; particularly for any doctrine that is distinctively Catholic.

Many Protestants, however, will easily recognize that not everything they hold to is explicitly taught in the Bible.

These people, correctly, understand that the Bible indirectly and implicitly supports many other concepts such as the Triune God (three divine persons with one nature), the Hypostatic Union (Christ is one person who is both fully human and fully divine), and numerous other ubiquitous orthodox Christian beliefs. Such concepts must be carefully gleaned from Scripture and deduced since they are not explicitly stated as such within the Bible itself. Ironically, of course, many of the same hard-core Fundamentalists who would reject the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception because it is not explicitly taught in Scripture are also the first people who will jump to the defense of the implicitly taught doctrine that God is One Deity, but Three Divine Persons.

This essay is directed toward people who recognize that an implicit Eternal Truth is just as true as an explicit one even though something that is only implied, and not explicit, frequently requires the utilization of deductive reasoning and long periods of reflection before one can recognize a doctrine&#8217;s genuine orthodoxy. That is precisely why several implied Trinitarian and Christological definitions, such as the terms Hypostatic Union and Trinity, took centuries for the Church to formulate. That is also why the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception took centuries before it was formally dogmatized by the Catholic Church.

So, aside from the supposed difficulty regarding a lack of Biblical explicitness on the topic, a couple of common objections from Protestants come to the fore, the first of which is this:

Objection #1 - If Mary at the time of her conception was free of original sin then wouldn't her parents also have to be free from original sin and likewise her parent's parents have to be free of it and so on...?

It is only natural that this objection comes up from time to time. Why? Because it is, on the surface anyway, a very logical question given the set of presuppositions that a majority of Christians commonly bring to the table.

What are some of these typical Christian presuppositions?

First and foremost is the presupposition that Original Sin exists and keeps us separated from God unless, and until, it is somehow removed from our very nature.

Secondly is the common belief that all humans inherit Original Sin from their parents and will, likewise, pass this along to their children. Most Christians believe this.

To be fair it must be noted that there are some Christian sects that do not admit to the existence of Original Sin, but all agree that mankind is inclined to sin nonetheless (assuming one has attained the faculty of reason through age and/or natural ability). It is not within the scope of this essay to explore all of the variables, but for those Christians of the majority opinion, that is to say those who recognize that the human condition is inherently flawed as a result of Adam&#8217;s sin, this essay will attempt to draw upon those common presuppositions.

Therefore it is only logical to conclude &#8211; given the two above presuppositions &#8211; that a person who is "fallen" due to Original Sin MUST have inherited this state from likewise "fallen" parents...

and...conversely...

...a person who would be conceived without Original Sin (as Catholics claim with regard to Mary), and therefore not under a state of fallen-ness, must have inherited this un-fallen nature from their own parents. Therefore, if one is consistent, the parents MUST also likewise be &#8220;un-fallen&#8221; too. The word &#8220;MUST&#8221; is, of course, the key word that we will be exploring.

Let's note &#8211; before we get too far ahead of ourselves &#8211; what Original Sin is and what it is not. The orthodox view of &#8220;Original Sin&#8221; is that it is distinct from &#8220;actual sin&#8221; in that the doctrine speaks to Original Sin&#8217;s damaging effects on our nature and not to the personal guilt for the sins we have actually committed. Original Sin is often confused with Original &#8220;Guilt.&#8221; Simply stated, we are not guilty of Original Sin.

And what, exactly, is "Original Sin"? Please consider that when God created Adam and Eve He did so without our "original" parents having any sort of sin within them naturally. They were created as God intended for us to be: free of sin and filled with the light of grace. After all, it wasn&#8217;t until AFTER their first sin that they became fallen. This is a theological point that all Christians agree on.

When Adam and Eve, due to their own willful actions, sinned against God everything changed for themselves - and for us. Instead of having a nature filled with grace, their disobedience caused their nature to be changed into one that lacked the fullness of grace. In other words, rather than having a nature that was filled with the LIGHT of God's grace, they "threw away" and rejected God's Will for them (God Willed them to be as He created them: filled with grace) and therefore the grace &#8211; the LIGHT that filled their souls &#8211; left them. What remained was a nature that was fallen and incomplete.

Instead of God's Light filling their nature entirely (as He originally created them) a DARK SPOT filled the void and entered their nature. This "dark spot" &#8211; lacking God's Light &#8211; meant that their wills were weakened, their intellect was darkened, their appetites were disordered, and they were, therefore inclined to sin. In Latin the word for "dark spot" is macula.

Therefore, in a stark contrast, a soul that overflows with the fullness of God's Light &#8211; as God originally created Adam and Eve &#8211; a soul without a dark spot &#8211; is called immaculate.

Since our original parents, Adam and Eve, became the original sinners, and hence were no longer immaculate, they were the first humans to have acquired a fallen nature due to sin and it is this fallen nature that we all inherit. Thus it is called "Original Sin."

Therefore we are not "guilty" of original sin (in the same sense that we are guilty of actual sin when we commit it), rather we inherit it as part of our nature. It is precisely because we have a fallen nature (with all of its attributes such as our disordered appetites) that we commit actual sin. And those sins &#8211; the actual sins &#8211; are sins that we are personally guilty of.

Again, these are presuppositions held in common by a great majority of Christians on both sides of the Catholic/Protestant divide.

So now this begs a very serious question. We, as Christians, presuppose that the "macula" &#8211; the dark spot that inclines us to commit sin &#8211; is something that keeps us separate from God.

How, then, can we restore our nature so that God's Light (grace) fills our nature and thus enables us to maintain a RIGHT relationship with God?

The answer, simply, is that there is NOTHING that WE can do. We are incapable of restoring our own nature.

But, with God, nothing is impossible.

While WE cannot restore our fallen nature and fill the void with Light - God CAN. And God DOES. He does this through the saving work of Christ on the Cross. This is also a commonly held Christian presupposition. Thus, once we are joined to Christ through faith we are then born again into His Life of Grace. When we die-to-self and commit our lives to Christ, the Holy Spirit acts to remove Original Sin (by indwelling us with God&#8217;s Light and Grace) so that we can forever become children of God and part of the New Covenantal family.

Even though Original Sin has been removed from the nature of Christians (i.e., those joined by grace to the New Covenant) we are still inclined to sin because we still suffer from the effects of Original Sin. The theological concept which explains this mysterious phenomenon is called "concupiscence." The lingering effects of Original Sin can damage us by continuing to incline us to sin even after the indwelling of God&#8217;s Grace has eliminated the macula within us. This can happen for the simple reason that, while our having joined the New Covenant through grace DOES mend our state and our natural standing with God, it DOES NOT erase our past. Therefore, due to the nature we inherited at birth (from Adam), we came to have personal inherent &#8220;knowledge&#8221; of sin even though we, as regenerated Christians, no longer remain fallen. Even though our &#8220;right&#8221; relationship with God is repaired when we are born again into the New Covenant we still, in a very mysterious sense, &#8220;know&#8221; sin and are therefore inclined toward its illicit pleasure.

What is meant by the term &#8220;born again&#8221;? Many Christians, including Catholics, believe that this &#8220;regeneration&#8221; happens during Baptism, while other Christians believe that the term &#8220;born again&#8221; refers exclusively to when a person first comes to faith, especially within the context of a charismatic epiphany. Regardless of which camp one belongs to, all Christians agree that there is a moment when a Christian is born again into the New Covenant. And while Original Sin itself is vanquished forever for those who are born again, concupiscence and its knowledge of sin, and its inclination toward sin, rolls merrily along.

All Christians, at least those who adhere to the doctrine of Original Sin, agree that we are saved from our fallen nature by God alone and not through anything that a human can do for themselves. Most Christians, especially those who do not deny the existence Original Sin, reject the beliefs of Pelagians (an early heretical sect) who taught that we humans can somehow affect our own salvation through our own efforts outside of God's grace.

And that brings us back to the original question at hand. Since it is the intervening work, and free gift, of the Holy Spirit whereby we are restored to Light and "saved" from the dark spot &#8211; the macula &#8211; of our fallen nature, we can see that it would not be necessary for Mary's parents to have been likewise "immaculate" themselves at the time of Mary's conception.

And just as each of us receive this gift of divine intervention regardless of the state our parents happen to be in (and therefore a pagan, for example, can become an adopted son or daughter of the New Covenant even if their parents remain unregenerated pagans), so too Mary&#8217;s reception of her gift was not dependent on the state of her parents.

It is certainly true that many Christians, both Catholic and some Protestants alike, believe that their children can become part of the Covenantal Family of God based on the faith of the parents (which is why many Christians baptize infants and why non-Christian Jews circumcise baby boys at the age of eight days), but the thing to be grasped here is that it is NOT us who repair our own fallen states, but rather it is the work of the Holy Spirit &#8211; not ourselves &#8211; who affects this restoration. This restorative intervention by the Holy Spirit applies to all humans whether the Immaculate Conception really happened or not. Thus, to answer Objection #1, Mary's parents did not have to be immaculate for her to have been made immaculate via the actions of the Spirit.

Rather, as Catholicism teaches, Mary was "saved" from inheriting a "dark spot" from her parents by the miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit at her conception in anticipation of her unique role in Salvation History as the "flesh-giver" and bearer of Incarnate Redeemer of the world.

So just as all saved Christians receive the gift of the intervention of the Holy Spirit with regard to the "cure" for their former fallen-ness, so too Mary received this gift.

The main difference between Mary and the rest of us Christians, according to Catholicism, is that her gift was received at her conception in anticipation of the New Covenant and her special role as mother of the Incarnate Redeemer, whereas the rest of us receive this gift through joining the New Covenant family as made possible by the saving work (on the Cross) of Our Redeemer &#8211; Jesus Christ.

This last point is, of course, where Christians differ in opinion. Protestants do not agree that Mary was saved from Original Sin at her conception in anticipation of her role as Flesh-giver of the Incarnate Savior.

Now...all this being said...

Let's take this topic to the next logical step. The next question from many people is this:

Objection #2 - If the Holy Spirit can intervene to prevent someone from inheriting this dark spot and a fallen nature why, then, would the Spirit choose to intervene at Mary's conception instead of at Christ's conception? If the Spirit had intervened at Christ&#8217;s conception, then Mary could have had a fallen nature and thus the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception would be rendered moot.


Given that all Christians agree with regard to how one inherits one&#8217;s parents&#8217; fallen nature, and given that Christ did not have a fallen nature even though He was fully human (as well as being fully divine) &#8211; having acquired human flesh and a human nature from Mary &#8211; then it naturally follows that an intervention from the Holy Spirit would have had to occur somewhere along the line or else Jesus would have inherited a fallen nature.

Why, then, did this intervention happen prior to Jesus' conception (according to Catholicism) instead of when He was conceived in Mary's womb?

That is a good and fair question.

Let's first of all note that God chose to redeem the world through the Incarnation of His Son. God could have chosen any number of ways to restore our fallen nature without necessarily sending His Son down to us and taking on flesh. He could have Redeemed Adam and Eve right then and there in the Garden of Eden in the blink of an eye (as easily as flipping a light switch - zap) and then we, as inheritors of their nature, would have inherited a nature free of any dark spots.



But God didn't do that. Instead, He chose to en-flesh His Son to affect our salvation.

For why else would He take on human flesh and a human nature if not to Redeem us by it? Thus Christ is THE REDEMER and SAVIOR. This is the premier and ultimate Christian presupposition regarding the Incarnation. Prayerfully think about that.

Just as Christian presuppositions with regard to Original Sin provided the solution to answer the first objection, other Christian presuppositions with regard to the Incarnation can answer the second objection.

And so, the very Flesh that Redeems us &#8211; the Flesh of Christ &#8211; is truly and fully human. And where did Jesus receive that Flesh? He received it from His mother &#8211; Mary.

Therefore, if He inherited His flesh and human nature from a human mother and IF His nature is NOT fallen then it raises some considerations of its own.

How so? If we humans inherit the nature of our parents, and if Christ did not have a fallen nature, then one of two possible scenarios presents itself:

EITHER

Scenario #1 is that Christ &#8211; our Redeemer and Savior &#8211; inherited from His mother a pristine human nature which was not fallen. Her nature was &#8220;saved&#8221; from fallen-ness prior to Christ&#8217;s conception. In this scenario it is Mary who is the object of prior salvation. This is the Catholic view.

OR

Scenario #2 is that Mary was fallen at the time of Christ&#8217;s conception, but that Christ was prevented from (i.e., "saved" from) inheriting her fallen-ness through the intervention of the Holy Spirit. In this scenario it is Christ who is the object of the immediate saving work of the Spirit. This is the Protestant view even if few Protestants ever think of it in these terms.

In both scenarios we have the necessity of a &#8220;saving&#8221; intervention by the Holy Spirit.

But, in scenario #2 we can see a great difficulty arising. Why? Because for Jesus to have been "saved" from inheriting Original Sin that means that Our Savior would have needed a savior AND Our Redeemer would have needed a redeemer and THAT is something that Scripture never points to and that, in reality, is an utter impossibility. For Christ Himself is "THE SAVIOR" and He is "THE REDEEMER".

Here the hard-core Fundamentalist who requires an explicit Biblical mandate is at total loss when asked to supply the slightest Scriptural reference to Jesus needing to be saved or redeemed at any time during the Incarnated earthly life of the Messiah.

Therefore, the only logical and consistent possibility is that Jesus inherited a human nature that existed exactly as Adam and Eve's nature once existed &#8211; filled with the light of Grace &#8211; devoid of a dark spot &#8211; a nature that was made IMMACULATE through the miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Mary has a Savior even though Jesus does not since He is the Savior.

The Christian presuppositions that naturally flow out of the doctrines of Original Sin and the Incarnation provide the foundational principles that can bridge the gap between those who reject the possibility of the Immaculate Conception and those who accept it as an orthodox Eternal Truth that is implicitly supported by Scripture.

And now, viewed from this perspective, we can see why it was that the Angel Gabriel said to Mary at the Annunciation, "Hail, Full of Grace" for she was, indeed, filled with God's Light. And it was this fullness of a grace-filled human nature that Jesus &#8211; our Redeemer and Savior &#8211; inherited from His mother.

Link to his site:

www.newman99.com this article is also posted on Catholic-Legate as well.

 

[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.

I suppose I would fit in that categhory though I do not understand why that would make me a "fundamentalist".
Anyway thanks to you and your husband for taking the time to put up that article........God bless....

 

[D'Ann]

I suppose I would fit in that categhory though I do not understand why that would make me a "fundamentalist".
Anyway thanks to you and your husband for taking the time to put up that article........God bless....

I think he was only using the term "fundamentalist" in reference to other faiths that may view what he was saying in a similar way. He meant no disrespect to any one faith.

Thank you for reading his article. It's a long one. You are a blessing brother.

May our Lord bless you and yours always,

Deb

 

[D'Ann]

I do. I just don't see any dogmatic substantiation that the conception of Mary was "immaculate" But that's not the issue here: The issue is whether this DOGMA is biblical, apostolic, a part of the "Deposit of Faith," and "always taught by the Catholic Church."





.

The teahcings of Mary being immaculate was always verbally taught in a Traditional way. If you like, I can post early father church writings to further prove this.

And what some may not know, the Catholic Church is always evolving... learning and growing.

Many teachings are only teachings based on Traditions. In time, the teachings can become "doctrine". Once a teaching becomes "doctrine", the next step is "dogma". Once a teaching becomes dogma, the teaching can no longer evolve or change.

The teaching of Mary's Immaculate conception has always been a teaching of the Catholic Church and once it became dogma, then it most certainly did become apart of the "Deposit of Faith". If you like, I can post evidence to prove this further CJ.

God's peace,

Debbie

 

[winsome]

“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.

 

[MamaZ]

We do not see Peter, or Paul or John teaching what you say has always been taught.. We don't eve see Jesus or God teaching this.. Makes one wonder who really did start the teaching of this.