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

Brennin said:

I do not affirm the Nicene Creed, and theologians were referring to the Catholic Church long before the rise of the papacy.

Click to expand...

Do tell. And what part of the Nicene Creed do you not agree with?

Brennin said:

The author of the article you cited most certainly is a Marian apologist; if he teaches Koine then he should know that in the transition from Attic to Koine there was a "gradual loss of semantic distinctiveness between the aorist and the perfect."

There is no justification in the Bible for your false Marian beliefs, sorry.

Click to expand...

All Marian doctrines point to Christ, and therefore are Christ-centered. In that sense, there is really no such thing as a Marian apologist.

SpiritualAntiseptic said:

It began at Pentecost actually and the Vatican was established by Peter before he was martyred. But if you want to tell me your story of what happened 1600 years ago that made the Catholic Church, I would love to hear it- to find it amusing and prove you wrong.

Click to expand...

There are many 'truths' out there.

SpiritualAntiseptic said:

They mean the same thing.

Unless you are one of those protestants that disregards the defintion of Catholic since it was created and instead, subscribes to a new definition created by protestants so they could leave the Church without violating the Nicene Creed.

"We believe in the Catholic Church, but by "Catholic" we don't really mean that one..."

Click to expand...

No they dont mean the same thing, but thank you
for your opinion.

A person can leave your denomination and not abandon Jesus or His gospel.
Your church doesnt have authority over me because God
didnt put me under the covering of your church.
Not only that, but havent you read the ECF?

Rick Otto said:

Speaking equaly loosely, everything in existence points to Christ.

Click to expand...

Hey, we agree on something. There really IS a God. LOL

terryobrien80 said:

All Marian doctrines point to Christ, and therefore are Christ-centered. In that sense, there is really no such thing as a Marian apologist.

Click to expand...

Yeah cuz the assumption for example puts that focus squarely on our Savior...

simonthezealot said:

Yeah cuz the assumption for example puts that focus squarely on our Savior...

Click to expand...

You are correct, even though you meant to be sarcastic. The Assumption points to the saving power of Christ, and points to what we can ALL look forward to. Mary is example number #1 of Christ's redemption, par excellance. We will all be eventually "caught up" (to borrow a phrase from the Rapture fanatics), and Mary leads the way.

terryobrien80 said:

You are correct, even though you meant to be sarcastic. The Assumption points to the saving power of Christ, and points to what we can ALL look forward to. Mary is example number #1 of Christ's redemption, par excellance. We will all be eventually "caught up" (to borrow a phrase from the Rapture fanatics), and Mary leads the way.

Click to expand...

(to borrow a part of a phrase from the anthropophagist fanatics) To be deep in history is to cease...believing these silly legends, and making them necessary to believe unto salvation...

Brennin said:

I do not affirm the Nicene Creed, and theologians were referring to the Catholic Church long before the rise of the papacy.

Click to expand...

From the beginning, the Catholic Church has always referred to those in communion with the Holy See. You can see this is in the early centuries of Christianity and the writings of the Church fathers.

sunlover1 said:

There are many 'truths' out there.

Click to expand...

Only if you are protestant, who believe in moral relativism.

No they dont mean the same thing, but thank you
for your opinion.

Click to expand...

It's not my opinion, it is a simple fact. You can read any of the early Christian writings and see that it refers to those in union with the Pope. How many early writings have you read? Irenaeus? Cyprian of Carthage? Augustine? You won't find someone trying to redefine what Catholic means until the protestant reformation when people were trying to leave the Church.

A person can leave your denomination and not abandon Jesus or His gospel.
Your church doesnt have authority over me because God
didnt put me under the covering of your church.
Not only that, but havent you read the ECF?

Click to expand...

If one leaves the Church, then they abandon part of the Gospel. Even Muslims believe in part of the Gospel.

Any baptized person is to be under the authority of the Church because Christ created that authority and gave it to the apostles- who gave it to others. At the end of the Gospel, Christ sends out his apostles to teach. He didn't leave us with a book and told everyone to read it and believe whatever they wanted based on their personal interpretation. I am under the authority of Christ, you are under the authority of Christ whenever it suits you.

SpiritualAntiseptic said:

From the beginning, the Catholic Church has always referred to those in communion with the Holy See. You can see this is in the early centuries of Christianity and the writings of the Church fathers.

Click to expand...

You are, of course, wrong. Cyprian and Firmilian were not in communion with Rome but they referred to themselves as Catholic and rightly so. You need to broaden your horizon beyond RC apologia.

simonthezealot said:

(to borrow a part of a phrase from the anthropophagist fanatics) To be deep in history is to cease...believing these silly legends, and making them necessary to believe unto salvation...

Click to expand...

who said that

Brennin said:

You are, of course, wrong. Cyprian and Firmilian were not in communion with Rome but they referred to themselves as Catholic and rightly so. You need to broaden your horizon beyond RC apologia.

Click to expand...

You can't possibly be reading the same Cyprian that I am:

Cyprian of Carthage


"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men ... when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

The following is an excerpt from Bishop Firmilian's epistle to Bishop Cyprian:

6. But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.

Brennin said:

The following is an excerpt from Bishop Firmilian's epistle to Bishop Cyprian:

6. But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.

Click to expand...

Not sure about Firmilian. but Cyprian certainly was in communion with Rome as the quotes I showed earlier prove.

Athanasias said:

Not sure about Firmilian. but Cyprian certainly was in communion with Rome as the quotes I showed earlier prove.

Click to expand...

No, he was not. He had an open dispute with Stephen, the Bishop of Rome, over baptism.

Excerpt from Cyprian's letter to Magnus:

And yet those men had not made a schism, nor had gone out abroad, and in opposition to God’s priests rebelled shamelessly and with hostility; but this these men are now doing who divide the Church, and, as rebels against the peace and unity of Christ, attempt to establish a throne for themselves, and to assume the primacy, and to claim the right of baptizing and of offering.

Excerpt from Cyprian's letter to Magnus:

And yet those men had not made a schism, nor had gone out abroad, and in opposition to God’s priests rebelled shamelessly and with hostility; but this these men are now doing who divide the Church, and, as rebels against the peace and unity of Christ, attempt to establish a throne for themselves, and to assume the primacy, and to claim the right of baptizing and of offering.

Brennin said:

No, he was not. He had an open dispute with Stephen, the Bishop of Rome, over baptism.

Click to expand...

One can have a open dispute and still be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Many saints have disputed the Popes and a few corrected him. They were still in communion with Rome. Again you cannot ignore the fact that Cyprian in his writing's makes it explicit that he was in communion with the Pope of Rome of the time. And in fact he he shows in his writings that it is necessity to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome and the Chair of Peter the center of Sacerdotal Priestly ministry to be Catholic.

terryobrien80 said:

All Marian doctrines point to Christ, and therefore are Christ-centered.

Click to expand...

How easily a false practice can be justified by tacking on a little disclaimer. To say that Mary is the co-redeemer of the world, or dispenser of all graces, for example, and say that such nonsense is "Christ-centered" is either an offense to Christ or just plain silly or both. Both DETRACT from the centrality and authority of Christ, rather than pointing to him!