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

[Catholic Christian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGfx1Qqs8BI

 

[Catholic Christian]

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.

It was always realized. It just had not been formally defined.

 

[Rick Otto]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUG6cu5_PuY

 

[Catholic Christian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKO1JAUNWQY&feature=related

 

[Albion]

It was always realized. It just had not been formally defined.

If it were "ALWAYS' realized, there would be evidence of that from the first century.

Got any?

 

[Catholic Christian]

If it were "ALWAYS' realized, there would be evidence of that from the first century.

Got any?

The Odes of Solomon:

"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. . . . " (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]).

Pain in childbirth is a result of original sin. Mary's lack of pain in these texts implies lack of original sin.

 

[Catholic Christian]

If it were "ALWAYS' realized, there would be evidence of that from the first century.

Got any?

The Ascension of Isaiah:

"[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’" (Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]).


Pain in childbirth is a result of original sin. Mary's lack of pain in these texts implies lack of original sin.

 

[Rick Otto]

Neither of those had anything to do with the conception of Mary, terry.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Neither of those had anything to do with the conception of Mary, terry.

He asked for first century evidence. Pain in childbirth is a result of original sin. Mary's lack of pain in these texts implies lack of original sin. Come on man, you know that.

 

[Albion]

No. God may well have spared her all pain in childbirth by a direct act having nothing to do with any immaculate conception, just as he caused her to conceive long after her conception.That is an undeniable fact. Your 'evidence' is, therefore, not evidence of the immaculate conception.

Try again.

 

[Catholic Christian]

No. God may well have spared her all pain in childbirth by a direct act having nothing to do with any immaculate conception, just as he caused her to conceive long after her conception.That is an undeniable fact. Your 'evidence' is, therefore, not evidence of the immaculate conception.....

It is 1st century evidence. Thats what you asked for: 1st century evidence. I can't stop you from spinning the evidence like a lawyer, so it is pointless to give you more. I found what you asked for. Find explicit 1st century evidence of the Trinity: You cannot. The understanding grows only as time goes by

 

[Albion]

It is 1st century evidence. Thats what you asked for: 1st century evidence.

I know. It's just not first century evidence of a belief in the immaculate conception.

it is pointless to give you more.

There appear to be none to give. You may call giving to us that which doesn't exist "pointless," but "impossible" would be a more accurate term for that.

It is an old concept, held by some in the Church, but what it would take to make this a doctrine to be held by Christians would be for it to be--

1) believed from the beginning--which any argument from Tradition absolutely cannot be without--and

2) the conviction of the Church, not just some individual or a few individuals here or there.

Your quotations from: (Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]) meet neither test.

.

 

[Athanasias]

What most people do not realize is that it did Not take 1854 years to discover this doctrine, The doctrine had been there in its root form(infancy stage) from the beginning. But it did take 1854 years to fully develop and declare this doctrine(in its adult stage). Now why should protestants have a problem with that. The Trinity also took hundreds of years to "fully develop" and declare even though it was there in its root form.

 

[lionroar0]

What most people do not realize is that it did Not take 1854 years to discover this doctrine, The doctrine had been there in its root form(infancy stage) from the beginning. But it did take 1854 years to fully develop and declare this doctrine(in its adult stage). Now why should protestants have a problem with that. The Trinity also took hundreds of years to "fully develop" and declare even though it was there in its root form.

According to them so did Sola Scriptura.

Peace

 

[WarriorAngel]

The iconclastics were 'influenced' by Muhammad.

So to follow that leader who didnt believe in the Divinity of Christ....means very little to me.

Icons can be traced ALL THE WAY back to the Jewish Temple.
All the way back to the Arc...
All the way back!

 

[MoNiCa4316]

To the OP:

The Church formally announces doctrine when ideas that are already held are opposed. Just something to consider. This means that maybe the Immaculate Conception was already believed in the Catholic church at that time, and that's not how the doctrine originated.

God bless

monica

 

[Athanasias]

According to them so did Sola Scriptura.

Peace

the problem with that is even the root form of sola scriptura cannot be found in scripture or the early church fathers writings. The root form of the Immaculate Conception can.

 

[Rick Otto]

It is 1st century evidence. Thats what you asked for: 1st century evidence. I can't stop you from spinning the evidence like a lawyer, so it is pointless to give you more. I found what you asked for. Find explicit 1st century evidence of the Trinity: You cannot. The understanding grows only as time goes by

terry, Jesus wasn't concieved in sin, so He wasn't spiritualy stillborn as Mary & all the Adam's Family.

Fair is fair if all we do is spin. Of course we can find sciptural evidence of the Trinity even before the first century. It wouldn't be any more explicit than what you've offered. Whether anyone believes it or not is a matter of how dizzy they are or aren't from the spinning that surrounds us. No shame in admitting it - I didn't think of of the Genesis curse, I was thinking of a broken hymen as the source of pain.
It is the intellectual dishonesty, rationalizations, & grandiosity that developes with time unless the gift of repentance from vain imagination is brought forth in us.

And like the best truths, that one cuts both ways as I'm fully & painfully aware, brother.

 

[Rick Otto]

According to them so did Sola Scriptura.

Well, I could quibble with that, but even if I didn't the reason for it would qualitatively differ from the reason for the IC taking long(er).

 

[Rick Otto]

the problem with that is even the root form of sola scriptura cannot be found in scripture or the early church fathers writings. The root form of the Immaculate Conception can.

LOL.