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

[Kepha]

Yeah, agree...plus I think what also plays into the bickering....is all we really know about each other...is what we disagree on....I have been thinking that a conversation thread...that is non- debate, and just for fellowship...might help here in the Marian forum, so we can get to know each other, on a more personal level. Which might help to promote a more Christ like behavior in an exchange of ideals...than bickering.

Just a thought...what say you?

That is a great idea actually. It's not easy getting comfortable with the others on the end of these debates when it seems that's all your doing.

 

[IamAdopted]

Says the one who thinks it says Highly Favored rather than Full of Grace. Maybe it is you who should do some deep studying in the language of the Bible.

Besides, I shouldn't have to search and claw my way to figure out basic Doctrines of Christ. Understanding them yes, but knowing what He wanted. Nope. It takes some of you years just to get what you think he's saying, then years again to come to a different conclusion. What a waste of time when all you have to do is read the Catechism.

Of course Catholics already know the Doctrines of Christ. But we just love to come into a deeper and deeper understanding of them through study.



Don't put words in my mouth. I said dead when not interpreted properly hence dead when you try to tell the Church what is what. Thanks but no thanks.

No. Again, you will Interpret.


Well if you can't error on interpretating and knowing what God wants definitively then you must be. Or do you mean you may be in error and may change your mind down the future but just preach anyways and hope for the best.

No thanks to the Catechism. Read it. Scripture refutes it. I will read scripture instead. For it is scripture that is alive and active. For it is Gods word that will not return to Him void.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

Exactly. Start with the premise that we ARE brothers and sisters in Christ and work our way from there.

I can do that. And in the end, what we think and believe isn't going to matter. SO, brother, I extend my hand to you in peace...and offer to be a friend.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

HBM, God Loves You... and because I respect that I love you too..

So, just cause you respect Jesus you love me? You wouldn't other wise?? (LOL, I think...) I extend my hand to you in peace and love too...

You are right about Peter...but even after grace, (NOW a days for me) it is still hard...my point is, we put too much on him and Mary honestly.

As for a fellowship thread here? Could work. I would participate, if I didn't get chewed up and spit out...not that you would...but it happened to me last night via PM..so I am a bit leary.

 

[repentant]

They were not all called Rock, given the Keys to Heaven, and specifically asked to feed the sheep while the others were still present.

Peter was called a stone..and the keys into heaven were give to all..how else could they preach how to get to heaven, if they didn't have the "key's" to get in?

Also question...not saying Peter wasn't important, but if he was the infalliable person Catholics make him out to be, and emphasize on so much, why out of 27 NT Books, the Church only chose to put in 2 of his? Wouldn't the majority of the Bible be what he wrote and said?

And why does his "infalliable" Apostolic succesion not apply to Antioch, since he found it as well? He was the first Bishop there as well, him alone..

Only reason why the Bishop of Rome"was considered "first among equals" (which was the original position) is because Rome at the time was the head of the whole Empire, not because of Peter. When Konstantine moved his empire to Byzantium, in which he renamed Constantinople, the Bishop of Const. was considred equal with the Roman Bishop...

 

[PassthePeace1]

So, just cause you respect Jesus you love me? You wouldn't other wise?? (LOL, I think...) I extend my hand to you in peace and love too...

No, sorry...I should have phrased that better...that's not the way I meant it...I meant, I respect the fact that God loves you...which is a basic Christian principle of loving one another, because of the love that God has for us.

You are right about Peter...but even after grace, (NOW a days for me) it is still hard...my point is, we put too much on him and Mary honestly.

I'm sure Peter had his struggles too...of course we know about his struggle when Paul had to correct him...and also there is a story about Peter, that when he knew that the Romans were after him, he fled from Roman....on the road out, he sees Jesus, carry His cross...Peter ask him..."My Lord, where are you going" and Jesus "replied, to Roman to be crucified again", so Peter was filled with sorrow, and returned to Rome and was executed. I don't know if that story is really true or not, but it is consistant with what we know about Peter's human nature....but my point is after Pentecost, he was giving the graces to over come the flesh...and so are we....not that this is always easy, but it is an ongoing process of carrying our daily crosses.

As for a fellowship thread here? Could work. I would participate, if I didn't get chewed up and spit out...not that you would...but it happened to me last night via PM..so I am a bit leary.

Sorry this has happened to you...I hope you reported it. However a fellowship thread would be just that....there would be know debate, we just can interact and get to know each other...outside of debating. We can just pray for each other, talk about hobbies, share recipes..etc...I guess it would only work, to the level people are willing to commit to fellowship....and not debating. However, I don't think it would hurt to try....

 

[lionroar0]

As for a fellowship thread here? Could work. I would participate, if I didn't get chewed up and spit out...not that you would...but it happened to me last night via PM..so I am a bit leary.

Peace

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

No, sorry...I should have phrased that better...that's not the way I meant it...I meant, I respect the fact that God loves you...which is a basic Christian principle of loving one another, because of the love that God has for us.

I'm sure Peter had his struggles too...of course we know about his struggle when Paul had to correct him...and also from there is a story about Peter, that when he knew that the Romans were after him, he fled from Roman....on the road out, he say Jesus, carry His cross...Peter ask him..."My Lord, where are you going" and Jesus "replied, to Roman to be crucified again", so Peter was filled with sorrow, and returned to Rome and was executed. I don't know if that story is really true or not, but it is consistant with what we know about Peter's human nature....but my point is after Pentecost, he was giving the graces to over come the flesh...and so are we....not that this is always easy, but it is an ongoing process of carrying our daily crosses.



Sorry this has happened to you...I hope you reported it. However a fellowship thread would be just that....there would be know debate, we just can interact and get to know each other...outside of debating. We can just pray for each other, talk about hobbies, share recipes..etc...I guess it would only work, to the level people are willing to commit to fellowship....and not debating. However, I don't think it would hurt to try....

amen to all of that!! and I say..ok...lets go for it! Actually, I think Sun has already started it....good idea! (((HUGS)))! Thanks for the offer of friendship..I accept!

 

[xristos.anesti]

That was an arduous read (this whole thread).

The more I read posts where people of different "theological egos" (Myself included) like parrots regurgitate over and over their little songs the more I see the desert fathers being right for leaving the humanity behind.

Truly, why did Christ incarnate for us? I mean - look at us?!

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

That was an arduous read (this whole thread).

The more I read posts where people of different "theological egos" (Myself included) like parrots regurgitate over and over their little songs the more I see the desert fathers being right for leaving the humanity behind.

Truly, why did Christ incarnate for us? I mean - look at us?!

excellent point, and on that note...with love, I leave you all to have at it! I won't debate this point any more...I need peace in my life and this does not bring that...so with love...Bye.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Enjoying the fellowshipping in here.

Peter was called a stone..and the keys into heaven were give to all..how else could they preach how to get to heaven, if they didn't have the "key's" to get in?

Also question...not saying Peter wasn't important, but if he was the infalliable person Catholics make him out to be, and emphasize on so much, why out of 27 NT Books, the Church only chose to put in 2 of his? Wouldn't the majority of the Bible be what he wrote and said?

And why does his "infalliable" Apostolic succesion not apply to Antioch, since he found it as well? He was the first Bishop there as well, him alone..

Only reason why the Bishop of Rome"was considered "first among equals" (which was the original position) is because Rome at the time was the head of the whole Empire, not because of Peter. When Konstantine moved his empire to Byzantium, in which he renamed Constantinople, the Bishop of Const. was considred equal with the Roman Bishop...

First point, Peter was the only one given the keys...ie, to make sound decisions on what the Church He built upon Peter would believe. Through the Advocate who would help him lead.

Second, If the leader of the Church was prone to error in issues of theology and morality, how long would the truth last?

Third, isnt the EO infallibly following Tradition? Or no?

Forth, the Church didnt include all the books because some were gnostic. And were shown to be written later.

Fifth, Rome was never the head of the Church. IT is only because of where Peter was persecuted and died that His Chair resides there.
BUT lets face it....Isreal cried out to be saved from Rome. Christ did so...300 years later BY His Church. By His leader. Coincidence?

And last, why so much criticism of the Chair of Peter and Peter himself??

Did Not Christ replace the Old with the New without changing everything too much...? Keeping similar concepts.

In fact, the Chair of Moses lived on until Peter's chair.
Christ replaced the Old with the New.
SO...how is it Christ mentioned Moses' chair and not Moses brother or sister?

O well. God Bless.

Dont think we will ever see eye to eye per say. But why does Peter and his authority bother anyone?

 

[DMagoh]

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

So what makes you so sure Catholicism is right now? I mean, you may switch to some other theology next year. Not trying to be funny, but it seems like you are having problems deciding what is correct doctrine (first Protestant, then Orthodox, and now Catholic). So what makes you think you wont decide something is wrong with Catholicism in a couple of years and try something else?

 

[Iollain]

Enjoying the fellowshipping in here.




First point, Peter was the only one given the keys...ie, to make sound decisions on what the Church He built upon Peter would believe. Through the Advocate who would help him lead.

Second, If the leader of the Church was prone to error in issues of theology and morality, how long would the truth last?

Third, isnt the EO infallibly following Tradition? Or no?

Forth, the Church didnt include all the books because some were gnostic. And were shown to be written later.

Fifth, Rome was never the head of the Church. IT is only because of where Peter was persecuted and died that His Chair resides there.
BUT lets face it....Isreal cried out to be saved from Rome. Christ did so...300 years later BY His Church. By His leader. Coincidence?

And last, why so much criticism of the Chair of Peter and Peter himself??

Did Not Christ replace the Old with the New without changing everything too much...? Keeping similar concepts.

In fact, the Chair of Moses lived on until Peter's chair.
Christ replaced the Old with the New.
SO...how is it Christ mentioned Moses' chair and not Moses brother or sister?

O well. God Bless.

Dont think we will ever see eye to eye per say. But why does Peter and his authority bother anyone?

I'll bet Peter would not agree to this:

TOTALLY YOURS

Immaculate Conception, Mary, my Mother.

Live in me. Act in me. Speak in and through me.

Think your thoughts in my mind. Love, through my heart.

Give me your dispositions and feelings.

Teach, lead and guide me to Jesus.

Correct, enlighten and expand my thoughts and behavior.

Possess my soul. Take over my entire personality and life.

Replace it with yourself.

Incline me to constant adoration and thanksgiving.

Pray in me and through me.

Let me live in you and keep me in this union always.



........well on second thought he would, but it would be a prayer to God.

 

[repentant]

First point, Peter was the only one given the keys...ie, to make sound decisions on what the Church He built upon Peter would believe. Through the Advocate who would help him lead

Now if this is the case, then why was every decision within the Church, for the first 1000 years, from the replacing of Judas, the first council in Acts, and all 7 of the Ecumenical Councils done with the entire Church (or in the case of Acts, all the Apostles) and not Peter alone if he was given the "keys" and the soul authority to make sound decisions?

Second, If the leader of the Church was prone to error in issues of theology and morality, how long would the truth last?

Because no one man is infalliable, only the Church as a whole is. It was good to the Holy Spirit and to us.. Didn't Paul rebuke Peter in Scripture? Or is that part missing in the Catholics Bibles?

Third, isnt the EO infallibly following Tradition? Or not?

Read above...

Forth, the Church didnt include all the books because some were gnostic. And were shown to be written later.

That is not what I am saying. If Peter was the sole authority to the lead the Church as you claim, why wasn't more of his writings included..?

Fifth, Rome was never the head of the Church. IT is only because of where Peter was persecuted and died that His Chair resides there BUT lets face it....Isreal cried out to be saved from Rome. Christ did so...300 years later BY His Church. By His leader. Coincidence

No his chair, like in Antioch, resides there because he found it with Paul. But that is not why the early Church held his chair in a "first among equals" honor, it was because Rome was the head of the entire Empire at the time..And who in the Church freed Israel, or the New Israel from Rome by the Church? Wasn't it Constantine who moved the Empire to Byzantium, later Constantinople, and hence forth the Bishop of Constantinople was considered equal in honor with Rome?

And last, why so much criticism of the Chair of Peter and Peter himself??

I think you are taking criticism of the RCC view of Peter's chair, and Peter, as criticism of him and his chair itself...

Did Not Christ replace the Old with the New without changing everything too much...? Keeping similar concepts In fact, the Chair of Moses lived on until Peter's chair Christ replaced the Old with the New.

Show me where in Scripture or in the ECF's where this is true..

But why does Peter and his authority bother anyone.

What you fail to realize, is that the abuse of his authority is what led to the East-West schism in the first place..and you ask why it bother's us?

 

[lionroar0]

What you fail to realize, is that the abuse of his authority is what led to the East-West schism in the first place..and you ask why it bother's us?

Actually that is not true. All of the west it not most of it had already been using the filioque before he even went to the east. the

The east was also no stranger to the filioque as it has been proposed by in the east several years before by a local council.

Another problem is that the east never had to deal with the heresy of arianism as the Church had to in the west.

The theooogy of the filioque if I'm not mystaken is actually syrian theology as well as the Immaculate Conception.

The problem was that it was not greek theology.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Now if this is the case, then why was every decision within the Church, for the first 1000 years, from the replacing of Judas, the first council in Acts, and all 7 of the Ecumenical Councils done with the entire Church (or in the case of Acts, all the Apostles) and not Peter alone if he was given the "keys" and the soul authority to make sound decisions?

Because St. Peter is not the whole Church nor does he have sole authority to make sound decision. This is just a caricature of the Papacy.

The role of the Papacy is to safeguard the apostolic faith which had already been received.

Because no one man is infalliable, only the Church as a whole is. It was good to the Holy Spirit and to us.. Didn't Paul rebuke Peter in Scripture? Or is that part missing in the Catholics Bibles?

The Papal infallability was not defined by the Pope alone but by Vatican I. And being infallable does not mean perpect.

That is not what I am saying. If Peter was the sole authority to the lead the Church as you claim, why wasn't more of his writings included..?

Because he just like te rest of the apostles were supposed to preach the gospel like Jesus told them to do.

No his chair, like in Antioch, resides there because he found it with Paul. But that is not why the early Church held his chair in a "first among equals" honor, it was because Rome was the head of the entire Empire at the time..And who in the Church freed Israel, or the New Israel from Rome by the Church? Wasn't it Constantine who moved the Empire to Byzantium, later Constantinople, and hence forth the Bishop of Constantinople was considered equal in honor with Rome?

St. Peter founded the see of Antioch. His see is the see of Rome. Also after the See of Antich went heretical several bishops went to rome and became popes. The emeperor then assigned bishops to take over the see of Antioch.

Peace

 

[cliffy]

Regarding Immaculate Conception, we are not theologians to debate the issues about the requirements of grace that Mary has to be necessarily endowed with to become the Mother of God. Suffice to say that she was selected by God through all the ages and among all the peoples for this divine task. If she was special for God how can she be not special for me? Further, from a more mundane perspective, you cannot fail to marvel at what a poor woman had to go through to protect her son from the might of the most mighty Roman Empire at the time.
Coming to St. Peter, how could anyone fail to accept his pre-eminence among the apostles. He lived with Christ, loved and was protective of Christ much more than any of the other apostles and was therefore selected by Christ to be the head of His Church. As Christ said upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail upon it, Amen.

 

[ScottBot]

So what makes you so sure Catholicism is right now? I mean, you may switch to some other theology next year. Not trying to be funny, but it seems like you are having problems deciding what is correct doctrine (first Protestant, then Orthodox, and now Catholic). So what makes you think you wont decide something is wrong with Catholicism in a couple of years and try something else?

Because I returned to the Catholic Church willfully and through a tremendous amount of research. it wasn't an instinctive, visceral conversion, but a prayerful, well-reasoned, intentional one.

 

[racer]

Because I returned to the Catholic Church willfully and through a tremendous amount of research. it wasn't an instinctive, visceral conversion, but a prayerful, well-reasoned, intentional one.

IOWs, you decided that the RCC is correct based upon your own human and fallible discernment and interpretations?

Hmmm . . . sounds an awful lot like what the rest of us have done. You have no more certainties than anyone, else . . . .

 

[repentant]

Actually that is not true. All of the west it not most of it had already been using the filioque before he even went to the east. the

And they had been falsely using it going against Canons of an EC. What Rome should have done was condemn them, not join in the party. But because of his so called "so authority" according to him (Roman Pope) he had the authority to override an EC on his own, and use the filioque..

The east was also no stranger to the filioque as it has been proposed by in the east several years before by a local council.

And condemned, and no longer used by the East. We fixed it, you accepted it..

Another problem is that the east never had to deal with the heresy of arianism as the Church had to in the west.

I think you need to look at that again..how did the west deal with it and not the east, when Arius was a Bishop of Alexandria? A synod denounced him in Alexandria, and also a EC was called by Constantine in Nicea, in which he was denounced again, by the Church. It was also condemened before this in a synod at Antioch. The Second EC in Constantinople in 381, was called to finally end the dispute between the Church and the Arians. This is the Council in which the Creed was established in the first place.

The theooogy of the filioque if I'm not mystaken is actually syrian theology as well as the Immaculate Conception.

And again, it was fixed..

The problem was that it was not greek theology.

Never was or will be..

Because St. Peter is not the whole Church nor does he have sole authority to make sound decision. This is just a caricature of the Papacy.

From one of your Catholic brethren..

First point, Peter was the only one given the keys...ie, to make sound decisions on what the Church He built upon Peter would believe. Through the Advocate who would help him lead

It seems you have disagreement on this issue...

The role of the Papacy is notsafeguard the apostolic faith which had already been received.

So the role is not to safeguard the Apostolic Faith? Well that is evident..

The Papal infallability was not defined by the Pope alone but by Vatican I. And being infallable does not mean perpect.

Exactly, it was defined by Rome..in 1870..And yes, infalliable does mean perfect..

Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble
Pronunciation: (")in-'fa-l&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin infallibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin fallibilis fallible
1 : incapable of error : UNERRING <an infallible memory>
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN <an infallible remedy>
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

St. Peter founded the see of Antioch. His see is the see of Rome. Also after the See of Antich went heretical several bishops went to rome and became popes. The emeperor then assigned bishops to take over the see of Antioch.

And where did you get this info from...?