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

[lionroar0]

And they had been falsely using it going against Canons of an EC. What Rome should have done was condemn them, not join in the party. But because of his so called "so authority" according to him (Roman Pope) he had the authority to override an EC on his own, and use the filioque..

The same authority that the easter church appealed to have it removed. When it was started to be used in the easter church.

And condemned, and no longer used by the East. We fixed it, you accepted it..

umm No the Pope condemned to keep the church unifed. After the eastern church appealed to the pope.

I think you need to look at that again..how did the west deal with it and not the east, when Arius was a Bishop of Alexandria? A synod denounced him in Alexandria, and also a EC was called by Constantine in Nicea, in which he was denounced again, by the Church. It was also condemened before this in a synod at Antioch. The Second EC in Constantinople in 381, was called to finally end the dispute between the Church and the Arians. This is the Council in which the Creed was established in the first place.

I'm aware of those councils. I'm also aware that several of the eastern church fathers and maybe even a few eastern Saints, agreed with the west and tried to tell the east that the filioque does not diminish the relationship between the Father and the Son.

It seems you have disagreement on this issue...

When seen through your POV.

First point, Peter was the only one given the keys...ie, to make sound decisions on what the Church He built upon Peter would believe. Through the Advocate who would help him lead

That is true.

So the role is not to safeguard the Apostolic Faith? Well that is evident..

It was a typo. But if you want to go there.

Exactly how many overlaping Orthodox diocese are there now in the US? Not in communion with each other?All valid?

And again, it was fixed..

Yes, because it was not greek. Perfect example why the Church is Catholic. It does not throw things away simply, because they are not Latin.

Exactly, it was defined by Rome..in 1870..And yes, infalliable does mean perfect..

Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble
Pronunciation: (")in-'fa-l&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin infallibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin fallibilis fallible
1 : incapable of error : UNERRING <an infallible memory>
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN <an infallible remedy>
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

I see now where your confusion comes from. Instead of going to secular sources for the theological definition of the Papal infallability you should go to a Catholic source.


The teaching office
888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command. 415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ." 416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith." 417
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. 418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," 419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." 420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. 421 892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" 422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

And where did you get this info from...?

History.

Peace

 

[repentant]

The same authority that the easter church appealed to have it removed. When it was started to be used in the easter church.

So 200 or so Bishops, together making decisions is the same as one man having soul authority? Remember.."It was good to the Holy Spirit and to us", not "good to the Holy Spirit and to Peter"...

umm No the Pope condemned to keep the church unifed. After the eastern church appealed to the pope.

So the Pope condemned it, yet it is still used in Rome to this day, and not the East...hmm..

I'm aware of those councils. I'm also aware that several of the eastern church fathers and maybe even a few eastern Saints, agreed with the west and tried to tell the east that the filioque does not diminish the relationship between the Father and the Son.

Umm..The Councils were about Arianism not the filoque..the Creed was written in it's original form as a result of Arianism..I think you need a little Council history lesson..

When seen through your POV.

First point, Peter was the only one given the keys...ie, to make sound decisions on what the Church He built upon Peter would believe. Through the Advocate who would help him lead

That is true.

You disagreed before, so which is it?

It was a typo. But if you want to go there.

Exactly how many overlaping Orthodox diocese are there now in the US? Not in communion with each other?All valid?

Umm none...schismatics who created their own "Orthdooxy" don't count. They are not part of the Church. All Canonical Eastern Orthodox Churches in the US are in communion..

Yes, because it was not greek. Perfect example why the Church is Catholic. It does not throw things away simply, because they are not Latin.

This has to do with what? I don't get the inuendo..the mistake of the filoque ins the East was fixed in the East and not used again...I don;t see where you get what you say here..it was rejected because it was UNCANONICAL and went against a Canon of an Ecumenical Council, that sais the Creed can not be changed or added to unless by another Council. This is why it was thrown out and rejected, not because it wasn't Greek..

I see now where your confusion comes from. Instead of going to secular sources for the theological definition of the Papal infallability you should go to a Catholic source.


The teaching office
888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command. 415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ." 416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith." 417
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. 418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," 419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." 420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. 421 892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" 422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.



History.

Peace

This doesn't seem to be how the RCC does business..Immaculate conception anyone? Dogma created by a Pope, not in a Council. Fact is, neither one us can have a Ecumenical Council without the other..

 

[ScottBot]

So 200 or so Bishops, together making decisions is the same as one man having soul authority? Remember.."It was good to the Holy Spirit and to us", not "good to the Holy Spirit and to Peter"...




So the Pope condemned it, yet it is still used in Rome to this day, and not the East...hmm..




Umm..The Councils were about Arianism not the filoque..the Creed was written in it's original form as a result of Arianism..I think you need a little Council history lesson..





You disagreed before, so which is it?





Umm none...schismatics who created their own "Orthdooxy" don't count. They are not part of the Church. All Canonical Eastern Orthodox Churches in the US are in communion..





This has to do with what? I don't get the inuendo..the mistake of the filoque ins the East was fixed in the East and not used again...I don;t see where you get what you say here..it was rejected because it was UNCANONICAL and went against a Canon of an Ecumenical Council, that sais the Creed can not be changed or added to unless by another Council. This is why it was thrown out and rejected, not because it wasn't Greek..





This doesn't seem to be how the RCC does business..Immaculate conception anyone? Dogma created by a Pope, not in a Council. Fact is, neither one us can have a Ecumenical Council without the other..

THis is true.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

But...having grace in no way means born without sin...

But according to the Bible, John the Baptist was born without sin because he was filled with the Holy Spirit even while he was in the womb.

And at what point did John the Baptist become filled with the Holy Spirit while he was in the womb? It was at the sound of Mary's greeting to Elizabeth.

So if John the Baptist can be born without sin, why can't Mary be born without sin especially since John the Baptist became filled with the Holy Spirit at the sound of Mary's voice?

And if Mary can be born without sin, why wouldn't God take it a little further back to her conception so that the devil would never have any dominion over the woman who was to become the Mother of the Lord?

Keep in mind that Jesus, being without sin, honored His Mother and was obedient to her.

 

[Rick Otto]

Only Jesus was born without sin.
Only a the virgin birth accomplished that...
"according to the Bible"!

 

[IamAdopted]

Only Christ was born with out sin for He was the only one that was born of the Holy Spirit and not of man.

 

[StTherese]

... for He was the only one that was born of the Holy Spirit and not of man.

You are right. It wasn't a man...it was a woman!

...conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

 

[IamAdopted]

You are right. It wasn't a man...it was a woman!

...conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

and we see that it is through Adam that sin came..

 

[IamAdopted]

We also see that Mary was not conceived immaculate for She was conceived in sin as all men are... For she was conceived of man..

 

[StTherese]

and we see that it is through Adam that sin came..

And since she is the Mother of God is exactly why she was born without the stain of original sin by the grace of God for the sake of His Son!

 

[StTherese]

We also see that Mary was not conceived immaculate for She was conceived in sin as all men are... For she was conceived of man..

...but spared of original sin by the grace of God. Do you not think God is capable of doing this?

 

[IamAdopted]

...but spared of original sin by the grace of God. Do you not think God is capable of doing this?

Orignal sin is what all men are born slave to.. This is why sin lives in our members.. This is why we sin is because we are slaves to sin. It is not what could do but what He has revealed He has done.. When someone is born again then they are slaves to righteousness if indeed the spirit of God dwells in them.

 

[StTherese]

Orignal sin is what all men are born slave to.. This is why sin lives in our members.. This is why we sin is because we are slaves to sin. It is not what could do but what He has revealed He has done.. When someone is born again then they are slaves to righteousness if indeed the spirit of God dwells in them.

All that said, you still did not answer my question...

Do you not think that God could spare the mother of His Son from original sin if He so chooses?

 

[IamAdopted]

All that said, you still did not answer my question...

Do you not think that God could spare the mother of His Son from original sin if He so chooses?

I did answer that.. I said God could do anything but the question is DID He? We do not see in scripture as this being so.. We see in scripture that all men are slaves to sin and that all have sinned.. Mary would be included in this for she was born of man and woman. Christ on the other hand was Born of Holy Spirit, God and woman.. Therefore Him being God would have no sin..

 

[Axion]

I did answer that.. I said God could do anything but the question is DID He? We do not see in scripture as this being so.. We see in scripture that all men are slaves to sin and that all have sinned.. Mary would be included in this for she was born of man and woman. Christ on the other hand was Born of Holy Spirit, God and woman.. Therefore Him being God would have no sin..

Very flawed analysis.

He took His HUMAN nature and human flesh from Mary. If He had taken a sinful flesh and nature from her, that would make HIM in need of redemption. Who is going to redeem this sinful Jesus?

 

[IamAdopted]

Very flawed analysis.

He took His HUMAN nature and human flesh from Mary. If He had taken a sinful flesh and nature from her, that would make HIM in need of redemption. Who is going to redeem this sinful Jesus?

This is why sin came through ADam and not eve.. For Mary was born of mans seed. Jesus was not.. He came from the Father. So therefore since Mary was born of mans seed she was born in sin.. Jesus came from Heaven and is God therefore He has no sin.

 

[StTherese]

This is why sin came through ADam and not eve.. For Mary was born of mans seed. Jesus was not.. He came from the Father. So therefore since Mary was born of mans seed she was born in sin.. Jesus came from Heaven and is God therefore He has no sin.

...so you are saying that a woman could not pass on original sin, only the man??

Where do you get this idea from?

 

[Rick Otto]

All that said, you still did not answer my question...

Do you not think that God could spare the mother of His Son from original sin if He so chooses?

He couldn't so choose. Omnipotence doesn't overwhelm His Omniscience. If He chose to do that, it would contradict His own word.
You are asking if God is capable of self-contradiction.
It is a fool's errand to answer.

The only person He spared from original sin was His own Son & He did it with a virgin birth He Himself prophesied.
Mary was not born of a virgin.

 

[StTherese]

He couldn't so choose. Omnipotence doesn't overwhelm His Omniscience. If He chose to do that, it would contradict His own word.
You are asking if God is capable of self-contradiction.
It is a fool's errand to answer.

The only person He spared from original sin was His own Son & He did it with a virgin birth He Himself prophesied.
Mary was not born of a virgin.

Not necessarily...

It was the merits of Christ that saved His Mother from the original sin. The same merits that bring about our salvation...yet God chose to apply those merits to Mary at her conception for the sake of His Son.

 

[Rick Otto]

That would make her The Lamb of God.
Only Jesus was born without sin.