Immaculate Conception - Why Did It Take 1,854 Years to Discover This Doctrine?

Rick Otto · Apr 17, 2007

that sounds like sloppy guesswork, not official policy.

I doubt that is an acceptable way to state Church policy. "Not bothering" & 'waiting for attack' do not sound like responsible posture toward the truth, & I'd be surprised if you're RC friends don't agree.

There was a truckload of politics surrounding both IC & Infallability definitions. The IC definition was used as cover to spring the infallability issue into definition against a whole lot of internal opposition. The council was manipulated ruthlessly.

I believe we're talking about Pius the IX, who was losing his Papal States to the Italian resurgiomente. Napolean had to send troops to save him. Napolean took over 300 chests full of documents from the Vatican archives back to Paris.
On a side note, Pius IX had kidnapped a Jewish baby after learning the Catholic servant had baptised it. International outrage forced him to allow parental visitation but the boy grew up to be a Catholic priest.

Interesting, eh?

Hentenza · Apr 17, 2007

Rick Otto said:
that sounds like sloppy guesswork, not official policy.

I doubt that is an acceptable way to state Church policy. "Not bothering" & 'waiting for attack' do not sound like responsible posture toward the truth, & I'd be surprised if you're RC friends don't agree.

There was a truckload of politics surrounding both IC & Infallability definitions. The IC definition was used as cover to spring the infallability issue into definition against a whole lot of internal opposition. The council was manipulated ruthlessly.

I believe we're talking about Pius the IX, who was losing his Papal States to the Italian resurgiomente. Napolean had to send troops to save him. Napolean took over 300 chests full of documents from the Vatican archives back to Paris.
On a side note, Pius IX had kidnapped a Jewish baby after learning the Catholic servant had baptised it. International outrage forced him to allow parental visitation but the boy grew up to be a Catholic priest.

Interesting, eh?

That is well said.

ScottBot · Apr 17, 2007

Hentenza said:
That is well said.

Not accurate, but well said. Its amazing how great people sound when they say stuff you completely agree with.

Hentenza · Apr 17, 2007

Amor Vincit Omnia said:
Not accurate, but well said. Its amazing how great people sound when they say stuff you completely agree with.

LOL! Now, answer my post 348.

ScottBot · Apr 17, 2007

Hentenza said:
Again, I don't disagree. Oral tradition at the time that the bible was being written was critical in forming the first churches and to spread the gospels. There was yet no written bible, however, the first christians, mainly the apostles, were still alive to refute any attack on their preaching. As a matter of fact, most of the epistles were written to dispell activities that the churches were doing that was contrary to what the apostles were teaching. Examples are, churches being influence by the legalism of the jewish christians, and the gentiles not letting go of some of their pagan beliefs, like eating meat that was "consecrated" to an idol.
Once the apostles died, their teachings were left for us to make sure that the teachings entrusted to them by Jesus were not distorted. The bible is infallible and inerrant exactly because it is the inspired word of God.
As the desciples of the apostles began to die, there was no other way left to make sure that the teachings of the apostles remained intact. Man is errant and, just a casual study of history reveals the propensity for embellishing words to suit their purpose.
Where oral traditons that do not follow the teachings of the apostles are allowed to develop doctrine, the purity of the teachings is compromised and false teachings develop.

I have to go out for a while so I will answer you when I return.

When the APostles died, they left their teachings to their disciples, like Timothy, Philemon, and Stephen. Man is errant, and just a casual study of history does reveal a propensity to embellish things to suit ones needs. Look at Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc... Now, the bible is inerrant, but not infallible. Fallibility requires the capacity to err. Since the dead words on paper cannot not actually DO anything, then those words, as written by the writers, in the language they were written in, in the social, cultural, and historical context in which they were written are completely and utterly inerrant. 100%, without a doubt, they contain no error. However, since paper and ink is incapable of actually teaching anything, in cannot be infallible. So, therefore to get the correct message, there needs to be a teacher, interpreter of the inerrant message. Jesus did not guarantee that every person who read SCripture would be able in without error, discern the message contained therein. If that were the case, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. There would be no need, because we would both be arriving at the same identical conclussion. Since we are not, then something else must be involved.

IamAdopted · Apr 17, 2007

However, since paper and ink is incapable of actually teaching anything, in cannot be infallible. So, therefore to get the correct message, there needs to be a teacher, interpreter of the inerrant message. Jesus did not guarantee that every person who read SCripture would be able in without error, discern the message contained therein. If that were the case, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. There would be no need, because we would both be arriving at the same identical conclussion. Since we are not, then something else must be involved.

The Holy Spirit is able to take Gods written word and quicken it to our Spirit. For the words written in scripture are Spirit and they are life. That is why it is said that scripture will fully epuip us.

Hentenza · Apr 17, 2007

Amor Vincit Omnia said:
When the APostles died, they left their teachings to their disciples, like Timothy, Philemon, and Stephen. Man is errant, and just a casual study of history does reveal a propensity to embellish things to suit ones needs. Look at Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc... Now, the bible is inerrant, but not infallible. Fallibility requires the capacity to err. Since the dead words on paper cannot not actually DO anything, then those words, as written by the writers, in the language they were written in, in the social, cultural, and historical context in which they were written are completely and utterly inerrant. 100%, without a doubt, they contain no error. However, since paper and ink is incapable of actually teaching anything, in cannot be infallible. So, therefore to get the correct message, there needs to be a teacher, interpreter of the inerrant message. Jesus did not guarantee that every person who read SCripture would be able in without error, discern the message contained therein. If that were the case, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. There would be no need, because we would both be arriving at the same identical conclussion. Since we are not, then something else must be involved.

Your statement would be correct if the ones interpreting and teaching the scriptures would have stayed within the scriptures. The problem occurs when interpretation is added to scripture to attain power or to manipulate the masses. Unfortunately, and I really do wish that it was not true, the RCC did exactly that during multiple papal reigns. One only has to look at the history of the church within the dark ages to see this. The feudal times is another perfect example. Let me remind you that Luther's main complain was the abuse of indulgences which was right at the top of his 95 theses. The addition of doctrine that is clearly not biblical within those periods shed light on the unfortunate direction that the church took.

Another point where I disagree with you has to do with your statement concerning the "dead" words on paper. Those "dead" words are still current. Just a cursory reading of the bible proves that the words apply just as much for today as they did 2000 years ago. The teachings of the bible are really not hard to interpret. I do wish that people with personal agendas would stop interpreting the bible for their personal gain. Your point concerning some protestants cults is well taken, but the RCC has also done their share of mis-interpreting.

I am not speaking idle words. I was a Catholic for half of my life, I studied the catechism and learned the teachings so I do have a perspective. I am not anti-catholic but I do have a problem with the RCC's version and interpretation of the bible.

IamAdopted · Apr 17, 2007

Dead words on Paper? This is what scripture says.

12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Hentenza · Apr 17, 2007

IamAdopted said:
Dead words on Paper? This is what scripture says.

ScottBot · Apr 17, 2007

IamAdopted said:
The Holy Spirit is able to take Gods written word and quicken it to our Spirit. For the words written in scripture are Spirit and they are life. That is why it is said that scripture will fully epuip us.

But why does it quicken your spirit and quicken my spirit with differing, conflicting messages?

ScottBot · Apr 17, 2007

IamAdopted said:
Dead words on Paper? This is what scripture says.

Yes, the MESSAGE is alive and active. The ink on the paper does nothing. It is when it is read,interpreted, and correectly understood does it become meaningful.

ScottBot · Apr 17, 2007

Hentenza said:
Your statement would be correct if the ones interpreting and teaching the scriptures would have stayed within the scriptures. The problem occurs when interpretation is added to scripture to attain power or to manipulate the masses. Unfortunately, and I really do wish that it was not true, the RCC did exactly that during multiple papal reigns. One only has to look at the history of the church within the dark ages to see this. The feudal times is another perfect example. Let me remind you that Luther's main complain was the abuse of indulgences which was right at the top of his 95 theses. The addition of doctrine that is clearly not biblical within those periods shed light on the unfortunate direction that the church took.

Another point where I disagree with you has to do with your statement concerning the "dead" words on paper. Those "dead" words are still current. Just a cursory reading of the bible proves that the words apply just as much for today as they did 2000 years ago. The teachings of the bible are really not hard to interpret. I do wish that people with personal agendas would stop interpreting the bible for their personal gain. Your point concerning some protestants cults is well taken, but the RCC has also done their share of mis-interpreting.

I am not speaking idle words. I was a Catholic for half of my life, I studied the catechism and learned the teachings so I do have a perspective. I am not anti-catholic but I do have a problem with the RCC's version and interpretation of the bible.

ANd I was an evangelical protestant.....and Eastern Orthodox. I have problems with the evangelical interpretation of Scripture......so here we are.

Hentenza · Apr 17, 2007

Amor Vincit Omnia said:
ANd I was an evangelical protestant.....and Eastern Orthodox. I have problems with the evangelical interpretation of Scripture......so here we are.

Glad to see that you are still your usual cranky self. You still didn't adress my post.

Renton405 · Apr 17, 2007

DMagoh said:
Does it say anywhere in the Bible that Peter was not actually Jesus' dog He brought with Him from heaven??? Please cite some verses..

Nuff said

Exactly.. thats why sola scriptura is so flawed.. if you go on the bible only you have absolutly no room to ask questions outside of the bible..

If its NOT in the bible, then it not must be true then.. Spoken from a pastors mouth.. See how self defeating sola scriptura is.. all it is , is reading scripture in the light of SELF-INTERPERATATION.. basically, your your own pope..

But wait a second. it dosen't say anywhere in the bible that a person can "self-interperate" scripture... In fact Peter says the exact opposite..

Hentenza · Apr 17, 2007

Renton405 said:
Exactly.. thats why sola scriptura is so flawed.. if you go on the bible only you have absolutly no room to ask questions outside of the bible..

If its NOT in the bible, then it not must be true then.. Spoken from a pastors mouth.. See how self defeating sola scriptura is.. all it is , is reading scripture in the light of SELF-INTERPERATATION.. basically, your your own pope..

But wait a second. it dosen't say anywhere in the bible that a person can "self-interperate" the bible.. In fact Peter says the exact opposite..

You have a warped sense of what "Sola Scriptura" means. The term refers to comparing writings or other media outside of the bible to scripture. Since scripture is our Lords inerrant and infallible words, why would you not want to compare everything you hear to it? What is the value of doctrine not based on scripture? Did the apostles say, "Oops we didn't have enough time to write everything down, so feel free to add whatever you want." I think not.

Kepha · Apr 17, 2007

Hentenza said:
God made sure that what we needed was written. God always comes through.

I'm sorry but that simply won't cut it. God's Word isnt Stagnant. It flows and lives through the ages, compounded on already established Doctrine. This reason you simply give there doesnt seem to have been thought through. Do you honestly believe your going to convince us that your 66 Book Bible has explained itself enough as not to cause disunity and confusion amongst the faithful on certain doctrines. That God thought it was enough when your constant splintering has proved otherwise.
In truth, God passed us a Church to go with the Scriptures. To guide us into new moral delimas such as with the abortion or contraception issues. He didn't leave it up to you or me to decide what it says then preach what most likely will end up being heresy.

Its quite simple really.

Actually, it isn't so simple really since anyone without sin wouldn't tell God that he knows that He knows his sins and folly. Notice even one verse up he's sure to say he did not steal yet they call him a thief. You'd think this person would also make it clear he had no sin if in fact it was Christ.

"Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."

And in case you still insist it is talking about Christ, did you ever hear where mother was sometimes called Isreal? You need to think about that as well. One thing for sure, it is NOT talking about Mother Mary.

IamAdopted · Apr 17, 2007

Amor Vincit Omnia said:
Yes, the MESSAGE is alive and active. The ink on the paper does nothing. It is when it is read,interpreted, and correectly understood does it become meaningful.

Maybe this is why you see different things than I do cause you read through what a church as defined what scripture means. I read coming to my Father and praying for God to give me wisdom to know and understand His word. For He is the Author of His word.

Hentenza · Apr 17, 2007

Kepha said:
Kepha said:

I'm sorry but that simply won't cut it. God's Word isnt Stagnant. It flows and lives through the ages, compounded on already established Doctrine. This reason you simply give there doesnt seem to have been thought through. Do you honestly believe your going to convince us that your 66 Book Bible has explained itself enough as not to cause disunity and confusion amongst the faithful on certain doctrines. That God thought it was enough when your constant splintering has proved otherwise.
In truth, God passed us a Church to go with the Scriptures. To guide us into new moral delimas such as with the abortion or contraception issues. He didn't leave it up to you or me to decide what it says then preach what most likely will end up being heresy.

Click to expand...

Where did I say that God's word was stagnant? God's words live through scripture to this day. It flows to established doctrine, not doctrine so blatantly outside of scripture that becaomes incomprehensible. Let me remind you that the RCC began the splintering in the great schism. The RCC began the denomination problem and has done absolutely nothing to unite people together. By advocating plainly blatant non-boblical doctrine it has in fact alienated itself from being the keeper of the scriptures. Do you not read historical events concerning the RCC from centuries ago? Or do you just believe blindly what the RCC tells you MUST be true. The bible is NOT a hard book to interpret, only the fallible, errant people, including the RCC, make it hard.

Actually, it isn't so simple really since anyone without sin wouldn't tell God that he knows that He knows his sins and folly. Notice even one verse up he's sure to say he did not steal yet they call him a thief. You'd think this person would also make it clear he had no sin if in fact it was Christ.

"Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."

Click to expand...

I have no clue what you are trying to say here. Please explain.

And in case you still insist it is talking about Christ, did you ever hear where mother was sometimes called Isreal? You need to think about that as well. One thing for sure, it is NOT talking about Mother Mary.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is why the woman clothed in the sun depicted in Revelation is not Mary. So what exactly IS your point.

Kepha · Apr 17, 2007

IamAdopted said:
Lets look at some points of scripture shall we. Now we see here that the scriptures is What Jesus leads us to. Not oral but Scripture. He says you are in error because you know not the scripture.

That's great IamAdopted. You have shown nothing here but point out we can use Scripture. I'm still waiting for your Scripture is sufficient verse. And please don't throw at us Tim 3:16 again. Before you do that, take a glance at a couple verses up and notice there is an appeal to Tradition, right before the appeal to the Scriptures. He plainly told him to hold on and be faithful from what he learned from him and I highly doubt it was just reading his marterials.

Tim 3:14
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,

And lets take one more look at verse 16-17 which you seem to think proves us wrong and take it step by step to what exactly we believe about those verses.

16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
What the Catholic Chruch believes about Scripture.

All Scripture is inspired......Correct
All Scripture is useful for teaching........Correct
All Scripture is useful for refutation......Correct
All Scripture is useful for training in righteousness....Correct
All Scripture may equip the Man of God for every good work..........Correct.

Now we have to throw in your added interpretation.

All Scripture is All you need......Um no. Why can't you people get this already before you try throwing it at us again.

ScottBot · Apr 17, 2007

Hentenza said:
Glad to see that you are still your usual cranky self. You still didn't adress my post.

The culmination of my posts provide answers to your questions. WHether you accept them is a different issue entirely.

Immaculate Conception - Why Did It Take 1,854 Years to Discover This Doctrine?

The Dude Abides

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Revolutionary

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Revolutionary

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Revolutionary

Revolutionary

Revolutionary

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Renton405

Guest

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Veteran

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Veteran

Revolutionary

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency