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

[Epiphanygirl]

The Douay-Rheims Bible was created at the time of the reformation for the sole purpose of defending held doctrines.

I don't know about you, but I TRY to steer clear of translations that have an agenda.

I agree!!! I won't use a Bible that has missing books, edits words, etc.....thats why I won't use a Protestant Bible
If that were seriously the case....why then did the Catholic Church wait a couple hundred years more to make it official? One answer........to fight off heresy....

 

[PassthePeace1]

Grace is unmerrited Favor.. Not sinlessness

Okay...Grace is unmerited favor.....Hail, highly graced one.

She was highly favored with grace, or another way to put it full of grace. Either way, it all comes out the same in the wash.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

The Douay-Rheims Bible was created at the time of the reformation for the sole purpose of defending held doctrines.

I don't know about you, but I TRY to steer clear of translations that have an agenda.

Okay...Grace is unmerited favor.....Hail, highly graced one.

She was highly favored with grace, or another way to put it full of grace. Either way, it all comes out the same in the wash.

Or it all comes out the same in her womb ....I'm in a cheeky mood, can you tell?

 

[QuantaCura]

Asking the question of the OP is similar to asking why the Divinity of Christ wasn't discovered for 325 years.

The formal, definitive, and precise declaration and explanation of a dogma is not when it was discovered, but it is in response to a controversy or dispute caused by those who deny a traditional doctrine revealed by God.

Christology was developed in a similar way over the first seven centuries or so of the Church.

 

[IamAdopted]

I agree!!! I won't use a Bible that has missing books, edits words, etc.....thats why I won't use a Protestant Bible
If that were seriously the case....why then did the Catholic Church wait a couple hundred years more to make it official? One answer........to fight off heresy....

If you will look at those extra books you talk about. They contradict scripture they also have historical error in them. So therefore they cannot be inspired by God. Even the councel agree's they are not the inspired word of God..

 

[IamAdopted]

Asking the question of the OP is similar to asking why the Divinity of Christ wasn't discovered for 325 years.

The formal, definitive, and precise declaration and explanation of a dogma is not when it was discovered, but it is in response to a controversy or dispute caused by those who deny a traditional doctrine revealed by God.

Christology was developed in a similar way over the first seven centuries or so of the Church.

The divinity of Christ was known from before He was born. Even Elizabeth knew who Mary was pregnant with and stated so.. So the divinity of Christ was known even before He came through the prophets of old.

 

[IamAdopted]

The divinity of Christ was known from before He was born. Even Elizabeth knew who Mary was pregnant with and stated so.. So the divinity of Christ was known even before He came through the prophets of old.

Jesus plainly states who He is. This is why the said He spoke blasphemy..

 

[Epiphanygirl]

If you will look at those extra books you talk about. They contradict scripture they also have historical error in them. So therefore they cannot be inspired by God. Even the councel agree's they are not the inspired word of God..

Please post documented proof with links with these claims that you have made.

 

[QuantaCura]

The divinity of Christ was known from before He was born. Even Elizabeth knew who Mary was pregnant with and stated so.. So the divinity of Christ was known even before He came through the prophets of old.

Exactly. But it wasn't dogmatically defined until the Council of Nicea in 325. Just like the fact that Mary was Immaculate and free from any stain or blemish was acknowledged and known throught history, but wasn't dogmatically defined until 1854.

 

[IamAdopted]

Exactly. But it wasn't dogmatically defined until the Council of Nicea in 325. Just like the fact that Mary was Immaculate and free from any stain or blemish was acknowledged and known throught history, but wasn't dogmatically defined until 1854.

It was defined when Christ stated whom He was.. Written before He came..

 

[IamAdopted]

Exactly. But it wasn't dogmatically defined until the Council of Nicea in 325. Just like the fact that Mary was Immaculate and free from any stain or blemish was acknowledged and known throught history, but wasn't dogmatically defined until 1854.

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.

 

[IamAdopted]

Please post documented proof with links with these claims that you have made.

Please take a second look and judge for yourself. Let's take some examples, starting with the book of Sirach which teaches that almsgiving makes atonement for sin. “Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins...Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sin” (Sirach 3:3, 30).
Now it is the constant teaching of the Law that atonement is made by a blood sacrifice. For example Leviticus 17:11 states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”
But Sirach teaches that honouring parents and giving alms atones for sin. Sirach teaches that a person can be justified by another method apart from substitutionary sacrifice.
Sirach teaches justification by the works of the law (honouring parents, etc.) which is directly refuted by the Bible: “A man is not justified by the works of the law” (Galatians 2:16). In fact, the apostle Paul goes as far as saying that “if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (verse 21). If we could obtain righteousness by such things as obeying the commandment and doing charity, there would have been no need for Christ dying on the cross.
Similarly Tobit 12:9 states that “alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.” But the Bible states that “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Being assured by the Word of God that Christ’s blood really cleanses from all sin, we cannot accept that alms-giving is an a different way of purging sin. In fact the Bible makes it clear that ‘without the shedding of blood there is no remission’ (Hebrews 9:14). Tobit proposes an alternative way for purging sin apart from the shedding of blood.
Wisdom 8:19,20 is another contradiction between the apocrypha and Scripture. “For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.” However, the Bible teaches that all are born with original sin. "Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men... by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners" (Romans 5:18, 19). “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). The author of Wisdom believes he was an exception.
Sirach 12:4-7 advices, “Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. Do well unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly; hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him... give unto the good, and help not the sinner.” This sound more like pagan philosophy rather than the teaching of God, “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you... Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back” (Luke 6:27,30). “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink;” (Romans 12:20, Proverbs 25:21).
There are also historical errors in the apocrypha. For example, Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.). These two events were separated by over 200 years and yet the total lifespan of Tobit was 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).
Surely the doctrinal and historical errors in the apocrypha are clear evidence against the divine inspiration of these books.

Taken from Here
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a109.htm

 

[Epiphanygirl]

If you will look at those extra books you talk about. They contradict scripture they also have historical error in them. So therefore they cannot be inspired by God. Even the councel agree's they are not the inspired word of God..

Taken from Here
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a109.htm

Nah......how about you find a unbiased, maybe university study, etc link......that site is horse puckey....not valid......not to mention.....those were old testament teachings about alms.....people were still doing that when Christ was living......remember the teaching about the coin....ya know the old lady who only had a pitance to give....people were judging on the sound it made...etc....I'm sure you are aware of it...yada yada......what about historical errors....yeah, they say the the Red sea really meant the "Reed Sea" now too.............does that make Exodus invalid??????????
You really need to come up with a better excuse than that........BTW, I love the book of Sirach, one of my favorite Deutero books.....there is some great wisdom in there that many could learn from.

 

[DMagoh]

[/color]

A person can't be full of grace, with the stain of original sin.



Peace be with you...Pam

So then Stephen was without original sin as well then?

Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.
Acts 6:8

 

[DMagoh]

...For us orginal sin is removed in the Sacrement of Baptism

Peace be with you...Pam

So why was Jesus baptized? Did He have original sin he needed to get rid of?

 

[DMagoh]

It was defined when Christ stated whom He was.. Written before He came..

AMEN!

 

[PassthePeace1]

So then Stephen was without original sin as well then?

Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.
Acts 6:8

Every baptized person, has the stain of original sin, and personal (if any) removed, at there baptism. The Grace of God, is then infused in the soul, and the person is born again.

 

[PassthePeace1]

So why was Jesus baptized? Did He have original sin he needed to get rid of?

No, Jesus didn't have original sin. John the Baptist's baptism, was only a symbolic washing, and didn't have the grace confered that would have washed away original sin. John, tells us that Jesus's baptism(the Sacrament of Baptism), would give the Holy Spirit.

When Jesus was baptized it marked the beginning of His public ministry, and Jesus is annointed with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I agree!!! I won't use a Bible that has missing books, edits words, etc.....thats why I won't use a Protestant Bible
If that were seriously the case....why then did the Catholic Church wait a couple hundred years more to make it official? One answer........to fight off heresy....

hogwash.

That version of the bible was specifically written and "translated" to support Roman Catholic dogmas.

and you should really look in to what was originally canonized, and what is now in the Catholic bible.

 

[repentant]

And then why did the Orthodox defend her Immaculate Conception and why are the Orthodox not united in the belive of the IC?

Peace

When did the EOC defend the IC? Please don't make stuff up. And the reason why maybe SOME Orthodox Christians may believe or think we believe in the IC, is because they are missinformed, and have been influenced by Rome...The 1895 patriarchal encyclical condemned the IC as something new, unknown to the early Church..

XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx


But anyways, couldn't you answer the question on if Stephen was immac. conceived as well..?