Immaculate conception of Mary?

[patricius79]

Just like the Jesus said he was literally a piece of wood with some metal hardware attached to it or that he was a grapevine.

Did Mary's Son, the Resurrection, literally rise from the dead?

I know that He did, and that the Mary was Immaculately Conceived.

 

[patricius79]

I didn't say that the words weren't there. The idea or concept isn't there.
.

The Bible doesn't say that the idea or concept of the Immaculate Conception is not in the Bible. So your argument is self-contradictory.

Also, the N.T. Canon is not even referred to in the Bible. By accepting it from the Tradition of the Catholic Church, do you not testify to the Immaculate Conception?

The Bible is explicit that Mary conceived Jesus Christ, our God. And the angel gave her a title, saying "Hail, Full of Grace!"

Also, the Bible says to hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

I know that Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Albion]

I think that since the Bible doesn't say that the idea or concept of the Immaculate Conception is not in the Bible, your argument is self-contradictory.

It's not.

Either the Bible supports a belief or it doesn't. In this case it does not. Therefore, no church has the right to dogmatize such a belief.

You've argued that if there is no support, no evidence, no authorization, for some idea, then men are at liberty to just make it into a doctrine. That does not fly. If it did, all the teachings of every cult would be considered God's truth by you, since their beliefs also are inventions without Scriptural backing, just like the "immaculate conception."

 

[bbbbbbb]

What I'm hearing is that you are saying that Adam, by the Original Sin, transmitted Death to all of us. I take it you mean spiritual death. That sounds like the Catholic Church's teaching that Original Sin resulted in the loss of holiness for all of us, excepting the New Eve and the New Adam. I know you won't agree with that, but then what does the transmission of Death mean? (As you've indicated, it is not merely physical death, and it is a Death which leads all of us into sin).

Praise be to Jesus through Mary!

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

 

[patricius79]

You've argued that if there is no support, no evidence, no authorization, for some idea, then men are at liberty to just make it into a doctrine.

Where did you or anyone argue for that? I agree that the Bible doesn't teach Sola Scriptura, or your idea that the Immaculate Conception is unbiblical, or the other specifically-Protestant traditions.

Can you explain how you know which books are in the Bible, if not by the authority of Catholic Tradition, which holds that Mary is the Immaculate Conception?

 

[patricius79]

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Amen. Thanks be to God for the the New Adam and the New Eve!

 

[Arsenios]

Yes. It's the same feast that celebrates Mary's assumption body and soul into heaven.



The earliest known feast was celebrated in Palestine by the 4th century. Then it was called "Memory of Mary".



Whatever the Ordinary Magisterium consistently teaches isn't optional to believe, albeit a dogmatic formula. There are no magisterial documents in existence that propose Mary didn't die.



Many Catholics mistakenly think that belief in Mary's death is optional since Pope Pius Xll left it out of his definition. He uses the phrase "having completed the course of her earthly life" instead of "having died" probably in light of the object of the feast which proclaims what came after Mary's passing from this world. Still he refers to the earlier feast of the Dormition and the teachings of previous popes about Mary having died in his encyclical. He even cites St. John Damascene and St. Germanus of Constantinople, acknowledging the adoption of the feast from the East. Moreover, he never questions whether Mary did die. What came after the end of Mary's earthly life is the definitive object.



No ecumenical councils were involved in either estasblishments of the feasts.



The name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," because there was more to the feast than her dying and being buried. It strictly proclaims that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven, which is a singular privilege granted only to the Mother of God.

Are you unaware that St. John the Theologian had the same thing happen to his body after he died and was buried like Her? There exist NO primary relics of either of them for that very reason. We do have the Sash of the Theotokos...

The essential feature, however, in the Dogmatikon of the Church, is that She died, and not that She was bodily assumed into heaven, and this because her death, unlike Christ's Death on the Cross, affirms that it was the fallen humanity of Adam that she bequeathed sinlessly to Her Son...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Yes. It's the same feast that celebrates Mary's assumption body and soul into heaven.



The earliest known feast was celebrated in Palestine by the 4th century. Then it was called "Memory of Mary".



Whatever the Ordinary Magisterium consistently teaches isn't optional to believe, albeit a dogmatic formula. There are no magisterial documents in existence that propose Mary didn't die.



Many Catholics mistakenly think that belief in Mary's death is optional since Pope Pius Xll left it out of his definition. He uses the phrase "having completed the course of her earthly life" instead of "having died" probably in light of the object of the feast which proclaims what came after Mary's passing from this world. Still he refers to the earlier feast of the Dormition and the teachings of previous popes about Mary having died in his encyclical. He even cites St. John Damascene and St. Germanus of Constantinople, acknowledging the adoption of the feast from the East. Moreover, he never questions whether Mary did die. What came after the end of Mary's earthly life is the definitive object.



No ecumenical councils were involved in either estasblishments of the feasts.



The name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," because there was more to the feast than her dying and being buried. It strictly proclaims that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven, which is a singular privilege granted only to the Mother of God.

I think that this is where Rome and Orthodox Christianity divide... The Feast is not of Her assumption, but of Her death, Her Dormition, which acknowledges that she was assumed, but the Feast affirms that Christ received from Her the fallen and dead humanity of Adam which we all possess... That is the essence of the Feast - It demonstrates her fallen humanity... The Assumption is, dogmatically, irrelevant, but a lovely and wonderful fact of that Dormition...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Can you explain how you know which books are in the Bible, if not by the authority of Catholic Tradition, which holds that Mary is the Immaculate Conception?

The Canon of Scripture was not dictated by the Latin Church, but was established by the Apostolic Church in Ecumenical Council and the Papal Latin Church agreed... And the Apostolic Church which preserved Holy Writ does NOT affirm the false doctrine of the IC...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

What I'm hearing is that you are saying that Adam, by the Original Sin, transmitted Death to all of us. I take it you mean spiritual death. That sounds like the Catholic Church's teaching that Original Sin resulted in the loss of holiness for all of us, excepting the New Eve and the New Adam. I know you won't agree with that, but then what does the transmission of Death mean? (As you've indicated, it is not merely physical death, and it is a Death which leads all of us into sin).

Praise be to Jesus through Mary!

This sounds much like Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity...

We are united in BOTH Good AND evil in this life prematurely...

Arsenios

 

[Albion]

The Bible doesn't say that the idea or concept of the Immaculate Conception is not in the Bible.

Stop. You cannot "prove" something to be true BECAUSE there is nothing to substantiate it.

The idea that you can is ludicrous, and almost everyone else knows that.

 

[patricius79]

The Canon of Scripture was not dictated by the Latin Church, but was established by the Apostolic Church in Ecumenical Council and the Papal Latin Church agreed...

Which Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church established the Canon, and how do we know it was Ecumenical except through the authority of the Papacy, which holds that Mary is the Immaculate Conception?

 

[patricius79]

This sounds much like Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity...

We are united in BOTH Good AND evil in this life prematurely...

Arsenios

What do you mean when you say that the result of Original Sin was Death, and that this Death was passed to all of us, and that because of this transmission of Death we all fall into sin, except for the New Adam and the New Eve?

In other words, what exactly is this "Death" that is transmitted from Adam to all persons, and how does it lead us all to choose sin?

 

[patricius79]

Stop. You cannot "prove" something to be true BECAUSE there is nothing to substantiate it.

That is why I don't agree with the Protestant oral traditions about the Mother of God, who is the Immaculate Conception.

 

[prodromos]

Which Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church established the Canon, and how do we know it was Ecumenical except through the authority of the Papacy

The pope was only asked to affirm the decisions of the ecumenical councils because he was absent from those same councils. All bishops who were absent were also asked to affirm the same. The bishops who were already present had already affirmed the decisions of the councils. The only way that councils became ecumenical councils had nothing to do with the pope, but rather being recognised as such by a subsequent council.

 

[prodromos]

That is why I don't agree with the Protestant oral traditions about the Mother of God, who is the Immaculate Conception.

Out of the numberless times that Panagia has appeared to Orthodox Christians, she has never referred to herself as the "immaculate conception", nor has she asked us to consecrate ourselves to her "sacred heart". Why do you think that is?

 

[concretecamper]

Out of the numberless times that Panagia has appeared to Orthodox Christians, she has never referred to herself as the "immaculate conception", nor has she asked us to consecrate ourselves to her "sacred heart". Why do you think that is?

Because the Orthodox are seperated from her Son's Church....just saying.

 

[patricius79]

The pope was only asked to affirm the decisions of the ecumenical councils because he was absent from those same councils. All bishops who were absent were also asked to affirm the same. The bishops who were already present had already affirmed the decisions of the councils. The only way that councils became ecumenical councils had nothing to do with the pope, but rather being recognised as such by a subsequent council.

I think Bishops can err, so I don't see how there could be an ecclesiastical basis for determining which councils are ecumenical apart from the Papacy. There were many heretical Bishops in the early Church. There would have to be an infallible, central teaching office which is easily identified to preserve the faith.

I don't know Church history, but I know the Eastern Orthodox scholar Alexander Schmemann said that the early Fathers and Councils unanimously acknowledged Rome as the center of ecumenical agreement.

The Successors of Rock and the Bishops in fully communion with them have definitively stated that the Mother of God is Immaculately Conceived.

 

[patricius79]

Out of the numberless times that Panagia has appeared to Orthodox Christians, she has never referred to herself as the "immaculate conception", nor has she asked us to consecrate ourselves to her "sacred heart". Why do you think that is?

I don't know. I do know that the Catholic Church believes that Mary is Immaculately Conceived, and that when she appeared at Rue De Bac and and Lourdes, she declared this.

 

[prodromos]

Because the Orthodox are seperated from her Son's Church....just saying.

She doesn't seem to be aware of that. Have you any idea of the abundance of miracles in the Orthodox Church through Panagia? How many times is it claimed she has appeared in the Catholic Church? I suspect it pales in comparison to the number of times she has visited the Orthodox. From our point of view it would seem apparent that it is Rome who has seperated. Just saying.