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

[LivingWordUnity]

You mean like a barn out back of an Inn, a 'synagogue of Satan', or a tax collecter's house full of prostitutes & winebibbers, or a Samaritan town & the company of an adultress at its well, or just a sin riddled world?

Going to someone's house and chatting with them is not the same as taking on their flesh and blood and DNA as your own.

Luke draws a direct comparison between Mary and the Ark of the Old Covenant. Also, instead of the angel saying "Hail Mary", the angel actually said "Hail kecharitomene".

Remember that an angel is a direct messenger of God, so the title given to Mary of kecharitomene was a title given by God.

Also, Mary was called "woman" which is what Eve was called before she sinned.

We also see that this "woman" is mentioned in Revelation and is identified with the ark of the covenant. (Rev. 11:19 through Rev. 12:1-2 and Rev. 12:17)

 

[Rick Otto]

But you discount the religious taboo against it back them. We casualy eat in restaurants right next to Hindus, Muslims, Rastafarians, Santa Ria-ites, you name it, but social intercourse with those people, in those dys, especialy eating, what with all the dietary laws & their obsession with ritual hygene!?
Luke makes a simile. Don't swoon.

 

[packermann]

How does being addressed this way mean you were born without original sin? How come there is nothing in the scripture that actually says it? I mean, you would think if she were the only exception to the rule (besides God himself as Jesus), it would be specifically mentioned.

When the angel addresed Mary, the actual Greek word used was kecharitomonei.
The root of this word is "chari", or "charis" comes from meaning grace, which is where we receive the word "charismata", the gifts of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor 12 & 14). Our Catholic faith defines "grace" to be the divine life of God. Protestant defines grace as "undeserved favor", which is why Protestant Bibles translate kecharitomonei as "Highly Favored One", although the literal meaning is "One who has been full of grace".

The phrase "tomo" in the word kecharitomonei mean to be completely filled with. If one is completely filled with grace, the divine life of God, there would be no room for sin.

The prefix, "ke", makes this verb to be present perfect tense. The present perfect in Greek means an action happened in the past with the effect still being in the present.

There are three people in New Testament that are said to be "full of grace".

Yes, Stephen was full of grace. But that does not mean that he was always filled with grace (obviously he was not filled with grace before he was a convert). He was filled with grace, that is, the divine life or the divine presence of God while he was suffering martyrdom.
New Testament also says Jesus is "full of grace" (John 1:14). Now, if Protestants are right that "grace" is "undeserved favor", then John 1:14 would mean that Jesus received undeserved favor from the Father. But that makes no sense at all. In what manner would Jesus, Himself being God and being without sin, need undeserved favor? But the Catholic interpretation fits perfectly with what we know of Jesus. If "grace" means the divine life of God, then John 1:14 saying that Jesus is "full of grace" means that Jesus is filled with God's divine presence. The Son is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). The Father gave the life in Himself to the Son (John 5:26). Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30), Jesus is full of grace because He is full of God, since He Himself is God.

The third person that the New Testament says was full of grace was Mary. But here the NT uses the Greek word differently than with Stephen and Jesus. As previously stated, the prefix "ke" is used for Mary that was not used for the other two. This makes the Greek word to be in the present perfect tense - meaning a past action with a present effect. This was not said about Stephen or Jesus. Stephen was only full of grace at one point, at his martyrdom. And Jesus was always full of grace. Since He was God Himself, He was always full of the divine life.
But Mary was different than Stephen and Jesus. Unlike Stephen and Jesus, some experience happened in her past that from then on filled her with the divine life of God. True, this passage does not say exactly when this past experience happened. It does not explicitly say that this happened when Mary was conceived, but there is another verse that shows that this experience must have happened at her conception.
In Genesis 3, God said to the devil:

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.

God said that He will put enmity between Satan and the woman. The word "emnity" means a wall of separation. Clearly God did not mean Eve. Eve was not at emnity with Satan. She was tempted by Satan, so she was not separated from him. As the woman's seed is Jesus, the woman must be Mary. God has promised that He will put a wall of separation with Jesus and Mary on one side and Satan on the other. When a person sins, that person is part of the devil's kingdom. So to have a wall of separation, that would mean that both Jesus and Mary were never part of Satan's kingdom, which means that Jesus and Mary had never sinned. Jesus never sinned because He was God. But Mary never sinned because she experienced a past action, kecharitomonei, that filled her with grace so much that she never sinned.

This doctrine is precious to me, not because of what it says about Mary, but what it says about God. God is holy! God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin. He hates sin that much! How could a holy God be in the womb of a sinful woman for 9 months???? In the Old Testament, in 2 Samuel 6, Uzzah grabbed the ark of the covenant to keep it from falling off the oxen. God immediately killed him for touching the ark of the covenant. Why? Because the ark of the covenant carried the 10 Commandments, the very words of God. No sinful man could touch the very words of God!
If God felt that way about the holy ark of covenant, how much more does He feel about Himself! How much more would he prepare a woman to be holy and sinless that would bear His holy presence. Anything less than a perfect mother would take away from God's glory.

BTW it did not take the CC 1,854 years to discover this doctrine. Just because the Church officially defines a doctrine, it does NOT mean that it did not discover this doctrine until then. For instance, the Church officially defined the deity of Christ at the Council of Nicea at about 325 AD. Does this mean that the Church did not believe in the deity of Christ before this? Does this mean that the first three hundred after Christ, Christians did not believe that Christ was God??? Of course not! As long as there is no controversey about it, the Church sees no need to officially define it. For the first 300 hundred years, there was no controversey about the Deity of Christ. Then a man named Arius started a controversey stating that Jesus was not fully God. This is why the Church then officially defined the doctrine of the deity of Christ. This is the same for the Immaculate Conception. Catholics always believed in the Immaculate Conception. But in the 19th century, the Catholic Church was invaded by modernism, a denial of the supernatural. The Church officially defined the Immaculate Conception in order to protect this long-held belief from modernism.

 

[Ormly]

BTW it did not take the CC 1,854 years to discover this doctrine. Just because the Church officially defines a doctrine, it does NOT mean that it did not discover this doctrine until then. For instance, the Church officially defined the deity of Christ at the Council of Nicea at about 325 AD. Does this mean that the Church did not believe in the deity of Christ before this? Does this mean that the first three hundred after Christ, Christians did not believe that Christ was God??? Of course not! As long as there is no controversey about it, the Church sees no need to officially define it. For the first 300 hundred years, there was no controversey about the Deity of Christ. Then a man named Arius started a controversey stating that Jesus was not fully God. This is why the Church then officially defined the doctrine of the deity of Christ. This is the same for the Immaculate Conception. Catholics always believed in the Immaculate Conception. But in the 19th century, the Catholic Church was invaded by modernism, a denial of the supernatural. The Church officially defined the Immaculate Conception in order to protect this long-held belief from modernism.

But the immaculate concept is a modern notion that would never have never been conceived to be considered had the church remained Apostolic. I believe it was Pope Leo who took it upon himself to have everyone revere her as the mother of God.

 

[packermann]

But the immaculate concept is a modern notion that would never have never been conceived to be considered had the church remained Apostolic. I believe it was Pope Leo who took it upon himself to have everyone revere her as the mother of God.

In the early 5th century, Nestorius was preaching that Mary was not the mother God.

At 431 AD, the Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorius's teaching as heresy and affirmed that Mary was the "mother of God"

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus

 

[Ormly]

That is still modern teaching if not found in the teaching of the Apostles.

 

[packermann]

That is still modern teaching if not found in the teaching of the Apostles.

I don't think many would agree with you that a 1500 year-old teaching is "modern"

 

[Ormly]

I don't think many would agree with you that a 1500 year-old teaching is "modern"

Ok, I will yield on that but can you say that teaching, among others, is of the Apostles before the days of Constantine? If not, why not and why should it have ever been accepted in your church doctrine?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Mary being this way cannot be backed by scripture making it a tradition that does not line up with the Origin if scripture making it extra-biblical.

The genuine, 100% Greek writing..says it does.

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

Well, first i had it hid in a secrit vault then i accidently let it out...
I look good for my age BTW.

Seriously ppl...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/kecharitomene.html

Genuine Greek....coming up.


caritow
The root word is charitoo [caritow], which means "to grace, favor." On this much, it seems, all agree. All the common English translations of the word therefore, regardless of whether the translators are Catholic or Protestant, use some form of "grace" or "favor" in them.
ke
The prefix on charitoo is ke, signifying that the word is in the perfect tense. This indicates a present state which is the result of a completed past action. The action which brought about the state in which Mary is, in other words, was completed before Gabriel's greeting. Gabriel is viewing the finished results.
This tense seems difficult to render in English, especially with one word, as Gabriel uses. The translator does not only want to indicate that the past action is complete, but also that there is a continuing state as a result. Allowing for more than one word, an example of the tense in English might be "you are certified to teach." "Are" indicates a present state, "certified" shows that the state is the result of a completed past action.
mene
The suffix on charitoo, mene, makes this a passive participle. "Passive" means that the action is performed on the subject, in this case Mary, by another agent. The verb is "grace" and the implied subject is Mary. The passive usage means that "someone graced Mary," rather than "Mary graced." Most theologians would probably accept the assumption that the implied "someone" is God. "Participle," in this case, means that the word has properties of both a verb and a noun. This makes sense in light of what has already been said about direct address. A direct address is a noun or pronoun, but "to grace" is a verb. Kecharitomene has verb and noun properties.
Again, there can be weaknesses in translation here. For example, St. Jerome and the King James translators tried to render kecharitomene as "full of grace." This translation is very good compared to many others, but because "grace" is no longer verb-like, it is also not passive as it is in Greek. Popular Catholic usage of this translation prompted this Protestant complaint:

It seems that the best possible translation of kecharitomene into English might be "Are-graced." Please bear with the explanation. Kecharitomene is a single word direct address. If at all possible, this should be retained in the translation. To signify their unity, a hyphen is added between the two English words. The implied "you" ("[you] are graced") is omitted, because including it would shift the direct address to "you" and away from the root "grace." Because the term takes the place of Mary's name and signifies her identity, it may be capitalized (not strictly necessary). "Are-graced" does indicate a present state ("are") which is the result of a past action ("graced"), and it retains the passive quality of the original ("[you] are graced [by God]"). It is admittedly not natural for these verbs to be used in a noun-like way, but this is an attempt at a more literal than dynamic translation.
Rejoice, Are-graced!
​

 

[packermann]

Ok, I will yield on that but can you say that teaching, among others, is of the Apostles before the days of Constantine? If not, why not and why should it have ever been accepted in your church doctrine?

Because, I think, from my days of being in Campus Crusade for Christ, I think I understand something about discipleship.

I remember having one or two Christians that I mentored. I would pour everything I knew into them - especially all the doctrine I knew. Later on, they themselves would then have their own discples,
amd they would pass on what taught them to their own disciples. And these disciples would do the same.

Now suppose I died. Is it feasible that a person could go to my personal disciples and asked them what I taught. I think so. I think a person can get a very accurate picture from my disciples. In fact,
I think one can understand my teaching from taking to the disciples of my disciples.

We do this all the time. Do you ever watch the Bigraphy Channel. They would interview a dead person's wife, or daughter, or son. By talking to people who knew him, you get a good idea what the dead person was like.
This is why the Early Church fathers are so important. Many of the them were direct disciples of the apostles. For instance Clement of Rome was a disciple of Paul. Ignatius of Antioch a disciple of John. Polycarp was a direct disciple of the apostles, and Ireneaus was a disciple of Polycarp.

There was no printing press back then. The letters of Paul were not mass-produced. A Christian in the first few centuries probably would go throiugh his whole lifetime with reading a letter of Paul or even one of gospels. So how could Jesus expect that His teaching to be decimated throughout Europe through a handful of gospels and letters?

This is why Jesus never commanded His apostles to write anything. But the last thing He did tell apostles was to make disciples of all nation, to teach them (orally) all His teachings. And then these disciples would their own disciples, and they will pass onto them everything they learned from the apostles. And so on, and son on. This is what we Catholics mean by Tradition. Tradition means "to pass on". 2 Tim 2:2, Paul wrote to Timothy that the things Timothy learned from Paul, Timothy sjould pass on to faithful me, and these men will then pass on to others as well.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I have a question that begs a reply...

IF this was not already a known teaching in the whole Church, how pray tell did the Pope suddenly invent this and get world wide acceptance...??

And do not tell me
1) We are blind and brainwashed
2) That we do not remove anti Popes

I mean seriously.......
IF the Pope was going to create something new, do you truly believe that all the Bishops and priests and deacons and laity would be fooled? World wide mind you.

That is pure logic ppl.....

Besides the fact the OO and EO have very similar understandings, even if they are culturally diverse in language..

And the earliest fathers who taught Immaculata were from the East.

Anyone see how illogical and misconceived it is to think the Pope one day woke up and decided to pronounce something for the Church that no one ever heard of before??

Besides...wouldnt he have come up with something about Christ instead if he wanted to be creative?

Seriously...am i getting through to anyone?

 

[Ormly]

I have a question that begs a reply...

IF this was not already a known teaching in the whole Church, how pray tell did the Pope suddenly invent this and get world wide acceptance...??

And do not tell me
1) We are blind and brainwashed
2) That we do not remove anti Popes

I mean seriously.......
IF the Pope was going to create something new, do you truly believe that all the Bishops and priests and deacons and laity would be fooled? World wide mind you.

Fooled??!! How about on pain of death they received it?

 

[Albion]

I have a question that begs a reply...

IF this was not already a known teaching in the whole Church, how pray tell did the Pope suddenly invent this and get world wide acceptance...??

Whether or not it was a "known teaching in the whole Church" is not the issue. It must have been the consensus within the Church and since the beginning. That's your own church's standard, not that some idea might have had some followers for some time.

How it gained acceptance is not hard to trace. Once the Pope is believed by his followers to be infallible, or even the chosen successor of St. Peter, his verdict will gain acceptance among most of them.

I mean seriously.......
IF the Pope was going to create something new, do you truly believe that all the Bishops and priests and deacons and laity would be fooled? World wide mind you.

And if they dissented? Losing one's power and position is not to be taken lightly by the princes of any church.

Anyone see how illogical and misconceived it is to think the Pope one day woke up and decided to pronounce something for the Church that no one ever heard of before??

I think most of us know that, for some time, the idea had had some following.

The fact that it is neither Biblical nor Apostolic is more relevant.

 

[Ormly]

I have a question for you, Albion:

How is it you can have confidence a church, illfounded? I am given to believe that you all also think it is the Church, Christ is returning for. Is that not so?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Whether or not it was a "known teaching in the whole Church" is not the issue. It must have been the consensus within the Church and since the beginning. That's your own church's standard, not that some idea might have had some followers for some time.

Actually then Albion...tell me how the EO and OO have similar teachings.

Granted they are not exact, but neither one would suggest she carried sin.....EVER!

So it is not something just the RC understood.
Its just something the RC defined finally.

Whether or not the definition is followed by the EO or OO exactly the same isnt the point.

The point is this....no one in the ancient Churches from the beginning ever dared think she had sin.

Fooled??!! How about on pain of death they received it?

Then on pain of death the entire history of Christianity fell.

Besides, according to the relative teachings there days based only on interpretations of scriptures....anything can be believed so long as you profess Christ is your Savior.

So what difference does it make?

Besides why in Heaven's name would Christ condemn His whole Church who understood this from the beginning, bacause we know she didnt have sin..?

Illogical debate.

Christ who forgives all sins, wouldnt let His ppl die over honoring His Mother Whom He also honored and OBEYED.

Not that i am not suggesting that anyone can do anything they like and commit to OSAS...because that is not biblical from anceint teachings...but if ppl follow that, how is it they can condemn others for beleiving in Mary as sinless?

How about folks think about what they teach? Since Catholics profess Christ...how is it that ppl condemn them ?

OSAS means anyone can sin and its already covered. Isnt that true?

So something is remiss. Either it works that way or doesnt.
What do you say?

 

[Albion]

Actually then Albion...tell me how the EO and OO have similar teachings.

Granted they are not exact, but neither one would suggest she carried sin.....EVER!

Again, that is not the point. Many traditions have arisen in church history. For the Pope to dogmatize one of them is easily done. But it is correct? That is the issue.

The point is this....no one in the ancient Churches from the beginning ever dared think she had sin.

What makes you say so? Have you interviewed all of them?

 

[Albion]

I have a question for you, Albion:

How is it you can have confidence a church, illfounded? I am given to believe that you all also think it is the Church, Christ is returning for. Is that not so?

I'm sorry, but as that is worded, I am not sure what you are asking me. "have confidence a church, illfounded?" What's that mean?

 

[WarriorAngel]

[/color]

Again, that is not the point. Many traditions have arisen in church history. For the Pope to dogmatize one of them is easily done. But it is correct? That is the issue.



What makes you say so? Have you interviewed all of them?

i dont have to interview them, just look up their doctrines online.
futhermore, i have seen the EO defend her sinlessness.

 

[Ormly]

I'm sorry, but as that is worded, I am not sure what you are asking me. "have confidence a church, illfounded?" What's that mean?

Who founded your church and why? It's a good history lesson.

 

[Ormly]

i have seen the EO defend her sinlessness.

<just curious>
How do they do that?