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

[DMagoh]

Yes, Scripture states that Peter was a fisherman who didn't even know who Jesus was until Andrew introduced them.

[bible]john 1:40-42[/bible]

Also, please be careful of the arguements that you make that they don't desparange particular important religious figures. I could post a mod hat if you'd like, but I hope you get the message.

I was merely pointing out the illogical conclusion of her post....."show me in the Bible where it says Mary wasnt sinless"....

You could say that about ANYTHING, which means I could make up all kinds of stuff and say "show me in the Bible that says it's NOT true...."

 

[ScottBot]

You didnt explain the "sinless Mary" doctrine and the "infallible pope" doctrine, both of which were unheard of until 1,854 years after the fact. If it was widely believed before then, why did it cause so much controversy when the pope declared it 1,854 years after the fact.

Because there was never any controversy about it before then. Dogmatic declarations are never officially pronounced until a particular teaching is called into question. A good example of this is the Apostolic letter of John Paul II, Sacerdotalis Ordinatio, in which he declared that the Catholic Church didn't possess the authority to ordain women as priests. Even if everyone in the Church thought it was a really good idea, it couldn't be done, because the sacramentality of ordination is derived from Christ and Christ picked 12 men for a reason. (Notwithstanding anyone's personal views on women church leaders...)

The Church's position on women's ordination had never been an issue until the 20th century. But, because some people started to openly question the Church's position on it, the Pope made an official pronouncement. Does that mean that there was never a doctrine before then? No, the church has ALWAYS taught that priestly ordination was reserved exclusively for men. But when that Tradition was challenged, then the Pope had to make the Church's position crystal clear.

 

[ScottBot]

I was merely pointing out the illogical conclusion of her post....."show me in the Bible where it says Mary wasnt sinless"....

You could say that about ANYTHING, which means I could make up all kinds of stuff and say "show me in the Bible that says it's NOT true...."

I would have used a less preposterous example, like, "Show me in the bible were it says that Jesus wasn't married and had children."

 

[DMagoh]

Because there was never any controversy about it before then. Dogmatic declarations are never officially pronounced until a particular teaching is called into question. A good example of this is the Apostolic letter of John Paul II, Sacerdotalis Ordinatio, in which he declared that the Catholic Church didn't possess the authority to ordain women as priests. Even if everyone in the Church thought it was a really good idea, it couldn't be done, because the sacramentality of ordination is derived from Christ and Christ picked 12 men for a reason. (Notwithstanding anyone's personal views on women church leaders...)

The Church's position on women's ordination had never been an issue until the 20th century. But, because some people started to openly question the Church's position on it, the Pope made an official pronouncement. Does that mean that there was never a doctrine before then? No, the church has ALWAYS taught that priestly ordination was reserved exclusively for men. But when that Tradition was challenged, then the Pope had to make the Church's position crystal clear.

Except that it wasn't tradition or the Church's position that Mary was sinless before the pope declared it in 1854. You cant revise history. It also wasn't the Church's position that the pope was infallible until then.

 

[DMagoh]

I would have used a less preposterous example, like, "Show me in the bible were it says that Jesus wasn't married and had children."

That's less preposterous?!?!

 

[ScottBot]

That's less preposterous?!?!

Its entire more argueable than assuming Peter was Jesus' dog in heaven.

 

[ScottBot]

Except that it wasn't tradition or the Church's position that Mary was sinless before the pope declared it in 1854. You cant revise history. It also wasn't the Church's position that the pope was infallible until then.

Who is revising history.

And the example I cited is an example of "infallibility". it means that the pope is protected from communicating matter of faith and morals erroneously by the Holy Spirit. Its not because each pope is just so personally wonderful.

 

[Hentenza]

If you understand how Scripture came to be, you have to at least accept that for a very long time, the Scriptures we all just letters to communities. Even the Gospels took years to find their way into general use by the Christian communities. Until the books of the bible were set upon and generally accepted, they were considered just that, pastoral letters from Apostles to different communities that addressed certain problems, or generally gave support and encouragement (remember, Christians were being persecuted while these letters were being written and circulated). The most reliable form of teaching at the time was word of mouth teaching from the Apostles, then later the Bishops (episcopoi) and deacons (diakonoi) they appointed (Timothy, Philemon, and Stephen are good biblical examples). Now, they had the Old Testament available to them, and the most common form of Scriptures used in the areas that Paul was evangelizing was the Septuagint. Regardless of what one thinks about this version of Scripture, it is historically verifiable that this was the most commonly used version of Scripture at the time. This is why the Gospels of Luke and Mark go through a very detailed lineage of Jesus in their beginings, to show that their new message (the Gospel) was in synch with established belief. Paul debates with the Thessalonians for weeks before they reject his new teaching (oral tradition). The Bereans accept it, and are considered noble for it. But the fact of the matter remains, if you were to go by the letter of the established canon, there was something about the new message that was objectionable, therefore people who came to faith, did so in a combination of oral tradition and Inspired Scripture. The two are inseparable.

It can be looked at this way, the Catholics have a particular tradition (a way of viewing, interpreting, and explaining the Scrtipures), Lutherans do as well. The congregants of a non-denominational, full-gospel, open-bible church do too, they operate under the tradition of the pastor. If you reject all of them, then you are operating under your own tradition.

Again, I don't disagree. Oral tradition at the time that the bible was being written was critical in forming the first churches and to spread the gospels. There was yet no written bible, however, the first christians, mainly the apostles, were still alive to refute any attack on their preaching. As a matter of fact, most of the epistles were written to dispell activities that the churches were doing that was contrary to what the apostles were teaching. Examples are, churches being influence by the legalism of the jewish christians, and the gentiles not letting go of some of their pagan beliefs, like eating meat that was "consecrated" to an idol.
Once the apostles died, their teachings were left for us to make sure that the teachings entrusted to them by Jesus were not distorted. The bible is infallible and inerrant exactly because it is the inspired word of God.
As the desciples of the apostles began to die, there was no other way left to make sure that the teachings of the apostles remained intact. Man is errant and, just a casual study of history reveals the propensity for embellishing words to suit their purpose.
Where oral traditons that do not follow the teachings of the apostles are allowed to develop doctrine, the purity of the teachings is compromised and false teachings develop.

I have to go out for a while so I will answer you when I return.

 

[IamAdopted]

I thought I would bring this over here from the Mary in scripture thread so we can discuss it.
I have head many reasons why Mary had to be a virgin. But scripture tells me that the reason Mary was a virgin was for a sign to Gods people. Not because she was more pure than anyone else. Not because she was immaculate. Here is where Gods people were promised a sign.
Quote:
10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights."

12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test." 13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.

 

[sunlover1]

10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights."

12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test." 13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.

No, it's not that she was more pure,
it wasnt even about her, it was about
(is about) God, what GOD did, making
a virgin deliver a baby.

There's a bit too much focus on
one of His servants imo.

sunlover

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

Doesn't cut it for you. By your own admission then, you have made yourself your own pope and counsellor. And yet you have the audacity to criticize us.

IYO....and right now, that doesn't count for much friend..so lay off...

 

[ScottBot]

IYO....and right now, that doesn't count for much friend..so lay off...

If my opinion doesn't count for much, then that must covey across the board, unless you have been granted some type of immunity from criticism that I am unaware of, or someone has elevated your opinions as more valid than everyone else's.

 

[HisBelovedMelody]

If my opinion doesn't count for much, then that must covey across the board, unless you have been granted some type of immunity from criticism that I am unaware of, or someone has elevated your opinions as more valid than everyone else's.

not that I know of, and I don't really care what YOU think of my opinions. I didn't ask did I? SO, once again...lay off. Just because I don't believe every word out of your mouth doesn't mean I am open game to your criticisms and demeaning attitude. Personally that turns alot of people off of the value of anything you might have to say because of your demeaning attitude. Might want to check that...

 

[ScottBot]

not that I know of, and I don't really care what YOU think of my opinions. I didn't ask did I? SO, once again...lay off. Just because I don't believe every word out of your mouth doesn't mean I am open game to your criticisms and demeaning attitude. Personally that turns alot of people off of the value of anything you might have to say because of your demeaning attitude. Might want to check that...

I don't criticize you. I criticize your opinions, which in these fora are fair game, since they are rarely substantiated with anything other than bold font and CAPS.

 

[DMagoh]

Doesn't cut it for you. By your own admission then, you have made yourself your own pope and counsellor. And yet you have the audacity to criticize us.

I don't criticize you. I criticize your opinions, which in these fora are fair game, since they are rarely substantiated with anything other than bold font and CAPS.

Sounds like you were critcizing her to me - but hey, you're the moderator so I guess you make the rules.

 

[ScottBot]

Sounds like you were critcizing her to me - but hey, you're the moderator so I guess you make the rules.

I have to follow the rules just like everyone else.

 

[sunlover1]

No, it's not that she was more pure,
it wasnt even about her, it was about
(is about) God, what GOD did, making
a virgin deliver a baby.

Wow!

And when you think about it, it not only
had to be a virgin, but it needed to be
a woman who had a clean reputation,
someone who was looked up to.

So this might have something to
do with the ECF high regard for
this woman too.

Can you imagine the profound respect
they gave her, everyone, but her even
more so?

I know had I been there with Jesus, I'd
have treated His kin extra reverantly
(seems crazy when you think about it,
because we should know no man
after the flesh anyhow)
And I bet He'd have corrected me too,
like He did with that lady who yelled
about marys womb.

But yes, the woman chosen to
give a virgin birth had to be above
reproach (you'd think) otherwise
people might accuse her of
all sort of things.
People are the same now as
they were then.

imo,
sunlover

 

[IamAdopted]

Wow!

And when you think about it, it not only
had to be a virgin, but it needed to be
a woman who had a clean reputation,
someone who was looked up to.

So this might have something to
do with the ECF high regard for
this woman too.

Can you imagine the profound respect
they gave her, everyone, but her even
more so?

I know had I been there with Jesus, I'd
have treated His kin extra reverantly
(seems crazy when you think about it,
because we should know no man
after the flesh anyhow)
And I bet He'd have corrected me too,
like He did with that lady who yelled
about marys womb.

But yes, the woman chosen to
give a virgin birth had to be above
reproach (you'd think) otherwise
people might accuse her of
all sort of things.
People are the same now as
they were then.

imo,
sunlover

I agree with this also. She was a hand maiden scripture tells us. This tells me she followed after Gods law. As did Josheph in the little we know about him.

 

[packermann]

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.

Just because a doctrine is not officially defined until 1854 does not mean that it was not believed before that. The doctrine of the deity of Christ was not officially defined until the Nicene Council in the fourth century. That does not mean that Christians did not believe in the deity of Christ before then,

The Church only bothers to officially define a doctrine when there are those who attacking the doctrine. Unless a doctrine is under attack, there is point to officially define it. That is the Church did not see the need to officially define this doctrine reveals that this doctrine was not under attack by the early Church, and neither by the Protestant Reformers. Even Martin Luther and John Calvin taught that Mary was without sin. This doctrine did not come under attack until the 1800's which is why the Church saw the need to officially define it at that time.

So it is not the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary that is new. It is the attack on this doctrine that is new.

 

[sunlover1]

So it is not the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary that is new. It is the attack on this doctrine that is new.

I don't know that that's so new either.

The reason the doctrine is attacked is
because it's not biblical.

Jesus Christ isn't the only one
who was without sin now.

If not for this doctrine, Jesus
would be the only one without
sin.

See the distinction?
It's sort of a biggy throughout
the NT.

imo.
sunlover