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

WA, you earlier said that the EO believe as the RC do but not exactly.

As a matter of fact, "they" don't believe in the Immaculate Conception as you do.

"Most Orthodox would say that she was without sin at the Annunciation, but would disagree that the Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate by St. Anne." -- Fr. Peter E. Gillquist, Becoming Orthodox

Using your own standard of judging then, if the EO don't, it can't be Apostolic and it certainly cannot be the case that there never has been any disagreement on the matter.

I said they will not ever suggest she sinned.

I I know how they believe...but when we come down to brass tacks, yes they are similar.
A Catholic, who says she was born without sin is not arguable different because the EO 's big difference is that she choose not to sin.

The RC also believe that as the New Eve she did not partake of sin by choice...as Eve also was created without sin but did choose to sin.
Mary had the same choice...but refused to sin.

They also do not emply deeper definitions, so which to say, they do not completely disagree, but they do not proclaim anything more than...she choose not to sin.

Which I did quote in my previous post.

The similarity is that she did NOT sin.

Ormly said:

None of that 'sinlessness' of Mary is found in scripture. Scripture never sets her apart in any of that talk. Further evidence of mother church usurping Father's authority over her.

BTW, Pauls called all believers saints. More evidence of the above usurping.

Click to expand...

If you do not see it, that is an option you choose to believe.
But i gave scripture references via a link already...
But i would like to add something to this dicussion...
Just so you know...

Much of what you believe is not in scriptures by definition, but referenced to or alluded to in the writings and made clear by the Church thru councils or Tradition.
TRINITY
INCARNATION
HYPOSTATIC UNION....
ETC

Many protestant traditions are outside of scriptures too.
You just think that they can be prooven by verses... which you feel allude to those traditions.

WarriorAngel said:

If you do not see it, that is an option you choose to believe.
But i gave scripture references via a link already...
But i would like to add something to this dicussion...
Just so you know...

Much of what you believe is not in scriptures by definition, but referenced to or alluded to in the writings and made clear by the Church thru councils or Tradition.
TRINITY
INCARNATION
HYPOSTATIC UNION....
ETC

Many protestant traditions are outside of scriptures too.
You just think that they can be prooven by verses... which you feel allude to those traditions.

Click to expand...

I would settle for objective evidence that supports your claim, but you have none.

Speak of Mary's sinlessness from scripture. You can't. The whole notion is fantasy drummed up by papal bull.

You councils and traditions are of men, not God.

As with your inability to understand the difference between Real Presence and Transubstantiation (on another thread), it's becoming apparent that you don't understand the difference between Immaculate "Conception" and not sinning.

WarriorAngel said:

I said they will not ever suggest she sinned.

I I know how they believe...but when we come down to brass tacks, yes they are similar.

Click to expand...

Well of course there is a similarity, but we are talking about the Immaculate Conception itself, not something similar to it.


Your whole argument has exploded. It is not something the EO necessarily believe . It is not Apostolic. And no, it is not Biblical either since what the angel said to Mary is that she was in God's favor AT THAT POINT IN TIME, not that she had been conceived without sin.

A Catholic, who says she was born without sin is not arguable different because the EO 's big difference is that she choose not to sin.

Click to expand...

Two different ideas. Being conceived without sin and choosing not to sin yourself is a difference anyone can understand. Are you seriously saying that you don't follow the difference? Or is "similar" good enough for dogma?

The RC also believe that as the New Eve she did not partake of sin by choice...as Eve also was created without sin but did choose to sin.
Mary had the same choice...but refused to sin.

Click to expand...

But we are not asking about RC beliefs, just what is true.

The similarity is that she did NOT sin.

Click to expand...

Which is NOT the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Mary may not have sinned herself, but that is not the doctrine of the Immaculate CONCEPTION.

The belief is something that men developed, after all. Next thread?

Lets look at it logically.......
If a person is born without sin [immaculately conceived] then how is it any different than if they never choose to sin?

One cannot be born without the stain of our parents who seperated us from God.... although of no fault of our own... we have it.
It is now part of humanity.

Nevertheless; even if they do not uphold St Augustine's writings in full, tho they do not agree with him, perhaps in confusion...thinking we merit that sin, which Augustine never said we did...
But that we are all sinners even in the womb and this is why we are baptised at birth.

Because all of mankind, without personal guilt of the fall to sin, still carry sin in our very natures.

St Augustine is a doctor of the Church but many feel he is a bit harsh on some points, but is effacious to study to understand.

However; according to the ecf's prior to the 1854, the fathers said she was born without sin.



"The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made."
Peter Chrysologus,Sermon 140(A.D. 449),in ULL,97


"[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary."
Jacob of Sarug(ante A.D. 521),in CE


"She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay" Theotoknos of Livias,Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6(ante A.D. 650),in THEO,180

etc etc etc

WarriorAngel said:

Lets look at it logically.......
If a person is born without sin [immaculately conceived] then how is it any different than if they never choose to sin?

Click to expand...

Good grief.

In the first case, the person would have been kept from Original Sin. That's what the Immacualte Conception would require. That's what the doctrine holds.

In the latter case, the person would have been born in sin but never thereafter committed one on his or her own, i.e. Actual Sin.

And "no," close enough doesn't "get it" in theology. If it did, you wouldn't say, as you have, that a spiritual presence in the Eucharist isn't good enough for you since, after all, it's "SIMILAR" to Transubstantion. Right?

The door is open for you to prove that Mary never sinned on her own, that she remained ever virgin, or any other Marian doctrine you care to expound upon, BUT you were wrong about the Immmaculate Conception being Apostolic.

Gotta run.

WarriorAngel said:

"The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made."
Peter Chrysologus,Sermon 140(A.D. 449),in ULL,97


"[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary."
Jacob of Sarug(ante A.D. 521),in CE


"She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay" Theotoknos of Livias,Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6(ante A.D. 650),in THEO,180

etc etc etc

Click to expand...

Human theories from minor thinkers 500 or so years removed from the Apostles.

As evidence, this proves nothing except that embellishing the memory of the Virgin was beginning to be apparent by this time--which I think we already agree was a fact of history.

Albion said:

Good grief.

In the first case, the person would have been kept from Original Sin. That's what the Immacualte Conception would require. That's what the doctrine holds.

In the latter case, the person would have been born in sin but never thereafter committed one on his or her own, i.e. Actual Sin.

And "no," close enough doesn't "get it" in theology. If it did, you wouldn't say, as you have, that a spiritual presence in the Eucharist isn't good enough for you since, after all, it's "SIMILAR" to Transubstantion. Right?

The door is open for you to prove that Mary never sinned on her own, that she remained ever virgin, or any other Marian doctrine you care to expound upon, BUT you were wrong about the Immmaculate Conception being Apostolic.

Gotta run.

Click to expand...

Who is arguing?
That is what i was getting at when comparing the EO to CC.

Albion said:

Human theories from minor thinkers 500 or so years removed from the Apostles.

As evidence, this proves nothing except that embellishing the memory of the Virgin was beginning to be apparent by this time--which I think we already agree was a fact of history.

Click to expand...

Virgin is not only symbolic of purity, but kept from anything is purity too.
So although God wanted to proove His Paternity....thru a Virgin, the symbolism is evident in that she remained pure because she was pure.

The fathers didnt embellish on theology or facts, only on their poetic love and honor towards her in prose.
That is the difference.

WarriorAngel said:

Who is arguing?
That is what i was getting at when comparing the EO to CC.



Virgin is not only symbolic of purity, but kept from anything is purity too.
So although God wanted to proove His Paternity....thru a Virgin, the symbolism is evident in that she remained pure because she was pure.

The fathers didnt embellish on theology or facts, only on their poetic love and honor towards her in prose.
That is the difference.

Click to expand...

And what CC book did you get that out of?

Her virginity is seen in Scripture. Her "sinlessness" is a far different matter.

Actually it is...
But those with eyes can see.

The OT was all pure prophecy. I dont think it was written thru coincidence.

Ezechiel 44
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.

Besides alluding to her perpetual virginity, this shows us how man cannot touch God...because we are so unworthy to even pass the same gate.

Yet, Mary conceived God, and bore Him.
Yet you think God gave her corruptible flesh...with stains of sin?

Again, this is a modern day notion, not anything taught in the ancient Church.

WarriorAngel said:

Actually it is...
But those with eyes can see.

The OT was all pure prophecy. I dont think it was written thru coincidence.

Click to expand...

!!ERROR!! ZONK, ZONK!! You are dismissing out of hand much history that, along with reading the new testament, explains prophecy and gives reason why special "graces" were not necessary for certain CC individuals, wrongly propped up to be what they weren't.

DMagoh said:

Just out of curiousity, if Mary "was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin" (Immaculate Conception), why did it take 1,854 years after the birth of Jesus before anyone realized this? How come the Catholic church did not recognize this fact until 1854 AD? It wasnt until Pope Pius IX uttered those words on December 8, 1854, that this doctrine was issued.

Click to expand...

Good day, DMogoh

One Roman Catholic notes:

Raymond E. Brown:

Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

It is clesrly unhistorical in that it has no basis. They waited so long as to not have to deal with the false premise on which this fallacy is based.

In Him,

Bill

WarriorAngel said:

Actually it is...
But those with eyes can see.

The OT was all pure prophecy. I dont think it was written thru coincidence.

Ezechiel 44
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.

Besides alluding to her perpetual virginity, this shows us how man cannot touch God...because we are so unworthy to even pass the same gate.

Yet, Mary conceived God, and bore Him.
Yet you think God gave her corruptible flesh...with stains of sin?

Again, this is a modern day notion, not anything taught in the ancient Church.

Click to expand...

Show me in Scripture where it says Mary was sinless.

mont974x4 said:

Show me in Scripture where it says Mary was sinless.

Click to expand...

You're right. Warrior Angel is trying to arrive at that conclusion by human reasoning based upon social considerations that we value--but which are not at all necessary to God.

As for the Bible, it says

1. All men are born in sin. Mary, being a human, would logically be included if we are to use that kind of human reasoning. But we can simply accept the Bible at face value.

2. Much of the thinking about the Immaculate Conception relates to what the angel said to Mary at the Annunciation. However, he does not call her a person who was conceived without sin. Never. Nowhere. He says that she has found favor with God, or is in God's favor. He says, according to older translations, that she is "full of grace." If we agree that grace = sinlessness, it still does NOT say that she WAS ALWAYS THAT WAY, which would be essential and unavoidable if we were to believe in any Immaculate Conception.

As many Church leaders from ancient times speculated, she might have been cleansed from her sin at that moment by an act of God, one that he could do just as easily if not moreso than keeping her from being conceived in sin before her birth--plus it does not contradict scripture as the Immaculate Conception idea does.

WarriorAngel said:

Actually it is...
But those with eyes can see.

The OT was all pure prophecy. I dont think it was written thru coincidence.

Ezechiel 44
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.

Besides alluding to her perpetual virginity, this shows us how man cannot touch God...because we are so unworthy to even pass the same gate.

Yet, Mary conceived God, and bore Him.
Yet you think God gave her corruptible flesh...with stains of sin?

Again, this is a modern day notion, not anything taught in the ancient Church.

Click to expand...

Good Day, WA

History refutes your broad brushed approach to the ancient Church:

Leo I

Leo I, a Roman bishop of the fifth century, taught that sin is transmitted by means of sexual intercourse, thus suggesting that Mary was conceived in original sin:
"And whereas in all mothers conception does not take place without stain of sin, this one [Mary] received purification from the Source of her conception. For no taint of sin penetrated, where no intercourse occurred." (Sermon 22:3)
Elsewhere, Leo refers to Jesus being the *only* one conceived without sin. He even refers to Christ's stock, a reference to Mary, being corrupt:
"For the earth of human flesh, which in the first transgressor was cursed, in this Offspring of the Blessed Virgin only produced a seed that was blessed and free from the fault of its stock." (Sermon 24:3)
And elsewhere:
"And therefore in the general ruin of the entire human race there was but one remedy in the secret of the Divine plan which could succour the fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent of original transgression, to prevail for the rest both by His example and His merits. Still further, because this was not permitted by natural generation, and because there could be no offspring from our faulty stock without seed, of which the Scripture saith, 'Who can make a clean thing conceived of an unclean seed? is it not Thou who art alone?'" (Sermon 28:3)
The unclean seed would include Mary. And he refers to there being *one* from Adam who is sinless.


Ambrose believed that original sin was communicated by means of sexual intercourse. Thus, Jesus avoided original sin by being born of a virgin. Mary, however, would have original sin:


"He was man in the flesh, according to His human nature, that He might be recognized, but in power was above man, that He might not be recognized, so He has our flesh, but has not the failings of this flesh. For He was not begotten, as is every man, by intercourse between male and female, but born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin; He received a stainless body, which not only no sins polluted, but which neither the generation nor the conception had been stained by any admixture of defilement. For we men are all born under sin, and our very origin is in evil, as we read in the words of David: 'For lo, I was conceived in wickedness, and in sin did my mother bring me forth.'" (On Repentance, 1:3:12-13)

"For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty." (cited in Augustine, On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47)

In Him,

Bill

Even worse is to try and make this verse ripped from its context, to try & serve as a metaphor for intercourse & virginity.
1: Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut.
2: Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
3: It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.
Mary would have to be the sanctuary. Ok.
But you have to then have & switch two different meanings for her gate and entering in.
Look at the bolded words above.
The Lord did not impregnate Mary the same way Joseph would've entering in by her gate, and it is entering in the sanctuary by this one of several available gates, that has been forbidden.

This is what is called "death by concordance" where you take a key word and look for a scripture that seems to support a favored notion.

Albion said:

You're right. Warrior Angel is trying to arrive at that conclusion by human reasoning based upon social considerations that we value--but which are not at all necessary to God.

Click to expand...

Which human reasoning?
The Church fathers?
Those taught from the Apostles or men 2000 years later?

As for the Bible, it says

1. All men are born in sin. Mary, being a human, would logically be included if we are to use that kind of human reasoning. But we can simply accept the Bible at face value.

Click to expand...

Jesus was 100% human

2. Much of the thinking about the Immaculate Conception relates to what the angel said to Mary at the Annunciation. However, he does not call her a person who was conceived without sin. Never. Nowhere. He says that she has found favor with God, or is in God's favor. He says, according to older translations, that she is "full of grace." If we agree that grace = sinlessness, it still does NOT say that she WAS ALWAYS THAT WAY, which would be essential and unavoidable if we were to believe in any Immaculate Conception.

As many Church leaders from ancient times speculated, she might have been cleansed from her sin at that moment by an act of God, one that he could do just as easily if not moreso than keeping her from being conceived in sin before her birth--plus it does not contradict scripture as the Immaculate Conception idea does.

Click to expand...

Genesis 3;15

WarriorAngel said:

Which human reasoning?

Click to expand...

This--

"Yet, Mary conceived God, and bore Him.
Yet you think God gave her corruptible flesh...with stains of sin?"

That's a rationalization and does not show that the Immaculate Conception...

1. is real
2. was necessary
3. was believed in by the early church, or
4. is the testimony of Scripture.