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

[Catholic Christian]

[/B]

If it is not there at the beginning, it is a human creation. Put another way, not Apostolic.



...more than a millennium after Christ!



Interesting speculation. Nothing to make dogma out of, however.

Well, the canon of the New Testament wasn't there at the beginning either. Based on your logic, we should only read the Old Testament.

 

[Albion]

Well, the canon of the New Testament wasn't there at the beginning either. Based on your logic, we should only read the Old Testament.

You have a point, but I don't think it really follows.

All Christians agree that the Bible is the revealed word of God. If we say that we can't prove it correct, we have no religion at all. But with human commentaries added over the centuries (Tradition), that is not the case. They are not universally agreed to, do not have Apostolic origin, and cannot be shown to have anything to do with the Apostles, despite the automatic claim that they are what the Apostles taught.

All of the books fo the NT except Revelation were in use while the Apostles were still alive and able to guide the churches about their validity and value.

 

[Brennin]

Actually, it was "realized" 9 months before Jesus was born. When the angel addressed her "Hail, full of grace".

And has been discussed in one way or another, since the Early Church, it just wasn't formal defined and decreed until 1854.

Peace be with you...Pam

The angel's salutation does not support the house-of-straw immaculate conception doctrine.

 

[Brennin]

You know, the word "Trinity" came much later too. Is that a good reason to deny the Trinity?

Yes, actually. God is not a three-headed, homoousian blob and Mary was not immaculately conceived.

 

[Brennin]

You should read Cardinal Newman's "Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine". In it, he explains the difference between authentic development of doctrine and invention of false doctrine.

Doctrine develops. The Church grows in understanding. We know more about the Trinity now than St Paul did, and we know more about Mary now than the Apostles did. This is not hard to understand.

What is not hard to understand is that the Roman Catholic Church has diverged from the truth of the Early Church.

It did take time for this doctrine to develop, but that has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. Two Franciscans, William of Ware and Blessed John Duns Scotus, helped develop the theology. They point out that Mary’s Immaculate Conception enhances Jesus’ redemptive work. Other members of the human race are cleansed from original sin after birth. In Mary, Jesus’ work was so powerful as to prevent original sin at the outset.

Unsubstantiated, saccharine fluff.

In Luke 1:28 the angel Gabriel, speaking on God’s behalf, addresses Mary as “full of grace” (or “highly favored”). In that context this phrase means that Mary is receiving all the special divine help necessary for the task ahead. However, the Church grows in understanding with the help of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit led the Church, especially non-theologians, to the insight that Mary had to be the most perfect work of God next to the Incarnation. Or rather, Mary’s intimate association with the Incarnation called for the special involvement of God in Mary’s whole life. The logic of piety helped God’s people to believe that Mary was full of grace and free of sin from the first moment of her existence. Moreover, this great privilege of Mary is the highlight of all that God has done in Jesus. Rightly understood, the incomparable holiness of Mary shows forth the incomparable goodness of God.

The above paragraph is chock full of non sequiturs, of course.

 

[Ormly]

Rightly understood, the incomparable holiness of Mary shows forth the incomparable goodness of God.

??? incomparable? holiness?? Come again?

Righly understood is to see she was simply a young maiden who pleased God in the way she conducted her life. I am quite sure there were others who qualifified as much as she which made other conditions necessary and were factored in that narrowed down God's selection of her.

 

[Catholic Christian]

I would like to share an MP3 link with everyone:
http://www.bringyou.to/ScottHahnBAM1990.mp3

The reason I am posting this is to try and foster a polite, respectful exchange of ideas. This is a 1990 episode of the Bible Answer Man, a protestant radio show. The guest is Dr. Scott Hahn, a Catholic theolgian. It is a great example of Catholics and protestants exchanging views in a respectful, charitable manner - as it should be. (Eastern Orthodox too: Sorry to leave you out of the mix.) I believe everyone here (including myself) could learn from this. I hope that you will all take an hour out of your day to relax and listen to it.

(*If you like Dr. Hahn, I would suggest one other link for the future:
http://www.bringyou.to/ScottHahnCatholicObjectionsCOMPLETE.mp3
This is Dr. Hahn answering common objections to Catholic teachings.)

God Bless.

 

[WarriorAngel]

[/b]

If it is not there at the beginning, it is a human creation. Put another way, not Apostolic.



...more than a millennium after Christ!



Interesting speculation. Nothing to make dogma out of, however.

Apostolic Churches as a whole, with some members alone not agreeing, all hold to her sinlessness.


And for the Disputation of Manes....
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0616.htm
My brethren, let none of you be incredulous in regard to the statements made by me: I refer to the assertion that Manes was not himself the first author of this impious dogma, but that it was only made public by him in certain regions of the earth. For assuredly that man is not at once to be reckoned the author of anything who has simply been the bearer of it to some quarter or other, but only he has a right to that credit who has been the discoverer of it. For as the helmsman who receives the ship which another has built, may convey it to any countries he pleases, and yet he remains one who has had nothing to do with the construction of the vessel, so also is this man's position to be understood. For he did not impart its origin to this matter really from the beginning; but be was only the means of transmitting to men what had been discovered by another, as we know on the evidence of trustworthy testimonies, on the ground of which it has been our purpose to prove to you that the invention of this wickedness did not come from Manes,69 but that it originated with another, and that other indeed a foreigner, who appeared a long you before him. And further, that the dogma remained unpublished for a time, until at length the doctrines which had thus been lying in obscurity for a certain period were brought forward publicly by him as if they were his own, the title of the writer having been deleted, as I have shown above.

 

[Albion]

Apostolic Churches as a whole, with some members alone not agreeing, all hold to her sinlessness.

I don't know if there is any such beast as "Apostolic Churches as a whole."

But some (though not all) of them do believe in her sinlessness at some point in her life, yes. So what?

What difference does it make to your standing with God if Mary was conceived without sin, was cleansed of it later on, or never sinned thereafter? Well, none. All this is just speculation and cannot be proved one way or the other. If it could, it still would not have any bearing on our eternal destiny or whether we are true disciples of the Lord. Bickering over this piece of irrelevant trivia or that one is not what we are put here in this life to do.

 

[Tdigaetano]

The deal with Mary is that she had to be born without sin and continued in her life without sin. This grace givin to her to be completely void of Sin is not of her power or her parents power but by the power of Christ himself.

Christ picked Mary to be his mother.... how many of us wish at times we could pick our mother. We should all be praising the Lord for the fact that he loved us enough to use his divine power to create his mother flawless.

Mary has a handful of scripture dedicated to her if you look and compare.

Mary in Genesis: Genesis 3:15

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

In most modern translations "She" is translated at "He" and both sides could argue on which it is but it doesn't matter that much. Since the actual world for she or he should be "It", but even if you wanted to use the scripture with "he"

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

In either context We see that the Woman's seed would directly be Mary's seed would bare forth and defeat the devil. Through Jesus Mary crushes the head of the serpant.

Mary is full of grace: Luke 1:28

As stated before in the thread.... but the key word is full. To be full of Grace is to be completely sinless between you and God. We recieve God's Grace through keeping our Faith alive till we die, but here Mary is already full of Grace before she is even close to death.

Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant

Ark of the Covenant contained:
the word of God -- the stone tablets inscribed with the Decalogue
Aaron's rod that "came back to life" and sprouted
manna, the Heavenly bread

Ark of the New Covenant contained:
the Word
Jesus Who came back to life after 3 days in the tomb
the true Bread from Heaven

How Luke wanted us to see Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant​

2 Samuel 6:2 David arose, went to Judah
Luke 1:39 Mary arose, went to Judah

2 Samuel 6:9 How shall the Ark of the Lord come unto me?
Luke 1:43 How shall the Mother of the Lord come unto me?

2 Samuel 6:11 The Ark stayed there 3 mos.
Luke 1:56 Mary stayed there 3 mos.

2 Samuel 6:16 David leaped before the Ark
Luke 1:41 The Baptist leaped in his mother’s womb in the presence of Mary


Mary is the ark of the new covenant and She should be revered as such since she is the Mother of God, and as children of God we are her children also... Honor thy Mother and Father.

 

[visionary]

If she can do it, then you all can do it.

 

[Rick Otto]

The deal with Mary is that she had to be born without sin and continued in her life without sin.

No she didn't.

 

[Albion]

The deal with Mary is that she had to be born without sin and continued in her life without sin.

That rationalization is often made, but there really is no reason why this would have to be. It might seem nice--like some topping on the cake for respect directed at the mother of Christ--but it's hardly necessary to God's plans, to the Incarnation, or to anything else.

And, on the other hand, we have scripture telling us that it didn't happen. So, both of those should pull us in the direction of discounting the Immaculate Conception or 'never sinned' theories that surfaced long after the time of Christ.

 

[chilehed]

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

For that matter, how about the teaching that "marriage can exist only between a man and a woman". How come no one recognized that fact until the late 20th Century? No one ever uttered those words until then...

 

[Albion]

For that matter, how about the teaching that "marriage can exist only between a man and a woman". How come no one recognized that fact until the late 20th Century? No one ever uttered those words until then...

Not so. Actually, almost those exact words have been part of the marriage ceremony since ancient times.

 

[Tdigaetano]

That rationalization is often made, but there really is no reason why this would have to be. It might seem nice--like some topping on the cake for respect directed at the mother of Christ--but it's hardly necessary to God's plans, to the Incarnation, or to anything else.

And, on the other hand, we have scripture telling us that it didn't happen. So, both of those should pull us in the direction of discounting the Immaculate Conception or 'never sinned' theories that surfaced long after the time of Christ.

Mary has very much to do with salvation...

Through Baptism we are all justified before God all of our Sins are washed away. Orginal Sin and other sins. That is why the Church only teaches One baptism for the forgivness of sins.

Once Baptized you are a member of Christ's church. Mary was baptized at conception by the Lord. She was able to live her entire life from birth to death with out sin....

Mary is proof to any who wish to believe in the Power of Jesus christ and the purpose of his death and ressurection to not only forgive us of all of our sins but to all every man woman and child to be born again in Christ.

Mary is a role model of what a follower of Christ should be.... If anyone took a role like Mary's they too would be sinless....

Mary's role in salvation is showing that Man can be sinless in christ if we follow what he teaches and obey what he commands. This is the power of faith in Christ not to be helpless and sinful but to be alive and sinless.

Christ died to defeat sin... those who follow christ should reject all sin any sin commited is a rejection of Christ's death.

Mary is the example of a perfect Christian. She went through her entire life following God. We are called to be baptized and take up the same dedication to follow the Lord.

 

[Brennin]

Mary has very much to do with salvation...

Through Baptism we are all justified before God all of our Sins are washed away. Orginal Sin and other sins. That is why the Church only teaches One baptism for the forgivness of sins.

Once Baptized you are a member of Christ's church. Mary was baptized at conception by the Lord. She was able to live her entire life from birth to death with out sin....

Mary is proof to any who wish to believe in the Power of Jesus christ and the purpose of his death and ressurection to not only forgive us of all of our sins but to all every man woman and child to be born again in Christ.

Mary is a role model of what a follower of Christ should be.... If anyone took a role like Mary's they too would be sinless....

Mary's role in salvation is showing that Man can be sinless in christ if we follow what he teaches and obey what he commands. This is the power of faith in Christ not to be helpless and sinful but to be alive and sinless.

Christ died to defeat sin... those who follow christ should reject all sin any sin commited is a rejection of Christ's death.

Mary is the example of a perfect Christian. She went through her entire life following God. We are called to be baptized and take up the same dedication to follow the Lord.

That is RC nonsense, of course. "Mary was baptized at conception by the Lord." Where do you folks come up with this offal?

 

[Tdigaetano]

That is RC nonsense, of course. "Mary was baptized at conception by the Lord." Where do you folks come up with this offal?

Why do you belittle God saying that he couldn't have done this?

 

[Brennin]

Why do you belittle God saying that he couldn't have done this?

I didn't write God could not do it. Why do you belittle the Son by trying to turn Mary into a second Jesus?

 

[Tdigaetano]

I didn't write God could not do it. Why do you belittle the Son by trying to turn Mary into a second Jesus?

I don't turn Mary into a second Jesus.
I petition Mary to pray to Jesus for my short commings that I may be forgiven and restored to a state of Grace that will help me reject sin and continue to follow Christ.

Mary is a God given example of how christians are to live their lives.

To reject Mary as one of the Lords most perfect creations is to reject the limitless power of the Lord.