Immaculate Conception???

[tulipbee]

This is a bit like posting

A Bible With 66 Books??????

in the controversial theology forum.

This is a bit like posting

A Bible With 66 Books??????

in the controversial theology forum.

This is a bit like posting

A Bible With 66 Books??????

in the controversial theology forum.

This is a bit like posting

A Bible With 66 Books??????

in the controversial theology forum.

What wrong with the 66 inspired, authored by God books?

 

[anna ~ grace]

What wrong with the 66 inspired, authored by God books?

My point was, that the Protestant canon really doesn't qualify as "controversial Christian theology" in the same way that full preterism, annihilationism, Nestorianism, open theism, or universal reconciliation does.

Neither does the Immaculate Conception.

 

[1stcenturylady]

What wrong with the 66 inspired, authored by God books?

Yeah, I didn't get it either.

 

[tulipbee]

Yes, one can come up with all kinds of misguided arguments, which is why there are over 6,000 conflicting denominations of Protestantism. However, the fact remains that Jesus Christ founded ONE Church 2,000 years ago, said it was to remain ONE, and promised that ONE Church, and no other, "The Holy Spirit will guide you into ALL truth", and "WHATSOEVER you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". Therefore, either Jesus lied, or the Immaculate Conception is bound in Heaven, guaranteed true by Jesus Christ Himself.

Invisible body of Christ , the believers, in the visible church is one church. Word denomination got out of hand . Lot of believers everywhere but many are not the rcr, roman catholic religion

 

[tulipbee]

Yeah, I didn't get it either.

heres how it works, The RCC believes they are authorized to do anything like add books. If they wanted to add Moby Dick to the bible, they feel they have the authority to do so. if they call Moby Dick inspired and authored by God then it become the Word of God even though God knows he didn't author Moby Dick.

 

[tulipbee]

My point was, that the Protestant canon really doesn't qualify as "controversial Christian theology" in the same way that full preterism, annihilationism, Nestorianism, open theism, or universal reconciliation does.

Neither does the Immaculate Conception.

so 73 vs 66 isn't controversial?

 

[chevyontheriver]

so 73 vs 66 isn't controversial?

Actually, it's a DIFFERENT controversy. That you guys subtracted some books and turn around and say we added them is indeed controversial, but does it have to become part of this thread? You could, if you so desire, make a new thread to address it instead of drifting this one off of topic.

 

[Eloy Craft]

The thing is,some Protestants can't imagine that the Holy Spirit reveals what becomes the deposit of Faith in the Catholic church. To believe that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are decided in some think tank at the Vatican to gain control of the believers or what not say's more about those who believe that than the catholic Church.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The thing is, Protestants can't imagine that the Holy Spirit reveals what becomes the deposit of Faith in the Catholic church. To believe that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are decided in some think tank at the Vatican to gain control of the believers or what not say's more about those who believe that than the catholic Church.

Unpacking what you said a little bit, and rephrasing, it's a crazier idea that the Vatican made this up than to believe it actually happened.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Unpacking what you said a little bit, and rephrasing, it's a crazier idea that the Vatican made this up than to believe it actually happened.

That is so very true. Divine Revealation by definition is ...well, Unthinkable!

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

The thing is,some Protestants can't imagine that the Holy Spirit reveals what becomes the deposit of Faith in the Catholic church.

You're right. I can't.

To believe that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are decided in some think tank at the Vatican to gain control of the believers or what not say's more about those who believe that than the catholic Church.

Unless we're right, in which case it says a whole heck of a lot more about the Catholic Church.

...it's a crazier idea that the Vatican made this up than to believe it actually happened.

Considering that people are quite adept at making things up, I'd say it's easier to believe it than to believe any number of Catholic traditions that fly in direct contradiction to the written Catholic tradition known as the Bible. When interrogating a suspect, the evidence of self-contradiction is a good sign that the story is being invented.

That is so very true. Divine Revealation by definition is ...well, Unthinkable!

It seems like everyone's got a divine revelation these days.

 

[tulipbee]

Looks like they believe anything they make up is authorized by God. It's getting out of hand and looks like they can't stop it.

Then Mary comes into the picture like they're shifting our focus off their errors to Mary like they think it's working.

Errors
on top of
errors

 

[chevyontheriver]

Considering that people are quite adept at making things up, I'd say it's easier to believe it than to believe any number of Catholic traditions that fly in direct contradiction to the written Catholic tradition known as the Bible. When interrogating a suspect, the evidence of self-contradiction is a good sign that the story is being invented.

That exact same approach is used by those who say the apostles made up the resurrection and how that is in 'direct contradiction' with reason and science. In the end, however, the Christian and Catholic faith is deeply conservative and not prone to 'making things up'. What appears at first blush to be a contradiction is usually found to have a good explanation. Not that everyone will accept it, just like many will never accept the resurrection.

My point was that the lengths people go to not believe Catholic teaching are often quite far fetched, more akin to the mental gyrations of those who refuse to believe in a spherical earth. With regards to Mary, of whom someone once said "all generations will call her blessed" it seems that they go the extra distance to get the message out that she is cursed. And then they say the Vatican made it all up. Do you have a year it was all made up by the Vatican?

 

[Athanasius377]

Do you have a year it was all made up by the Vatican?

Yes, 1854. December 8, 1854 to be exact.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes, 1854. December 8, 1854 to be exact.

Thank you for proving my point on how unbelievable the anti-Catholic position can be at times. You answered the question of when it was made up by the Vatican. Some people will really like your answer. Others might wonder how it came to be 'made up' then and look to see the long history of it.

Some people say the divinity of Christ was 'made up' at Nicea, that the Holy Spirit was 'made up' at the first council of Constantinople, and that the Bible of 73 books was 'made up' at the council of Trent. It's OK if people want to believe such stuff, but it stretches the limits of sanity to do so. Same with this issue of the Immaculate Conception. If anybody made it up, it would have been the angel Gabriel.

 

[Athanasius377]

Thank you for proving my point on how unbelievable the anti-Catholic position can be at times. You answered the question of when it was made up by the Vatican.

Because it was. December 8 1854 in The Bull Ineffabilis Deus promulgated by Pius IX. It became a de fide dogma of the Roman church meaning one must believe on pain of the sin of heresy. And the history of this mistaken pious opinion isn't nearly as long as you think it is. It is ironic to me that you are using the term anti-catholic to defend a doctrine that is not catholic. To put it another way, the fathers of the council of Nicea would have been manifest heretics according to Rome today.

Some people say the divinity of Christ was 'made up' at Nicea, that the Holy Spirit was 'made up' at the first council of Constantinople,

They would be incorrect. Any sound exposition of Scripture can prove the these two points which these two councils did just that. They issued a creed(s) that are still in use today because it states what Scripture teaches and can be proven. The Immaculate conception has no such pedigree.

and that the Bible of 73 books was 'made up' at the council of Trent.

Rome didn't make it up but she was able by definition insert seven spurious writings that are not Scripture. Unless you want to explain how Judith can't seem to get Nebuchadnezzar in the right empire. Or how Tobit says you can use fish heart, gall and liver to ward off evil spirits.

Same with this issue of the Immaculate Conception. If anybody made it up, it would have been the angel Gabriel

I would not impugn the character of Gabriel since he most certainly not have invented such vain doctrine. The question you need to ask is if this de fide dogma that must be believed is true why is there no teaching in either Scripture or the early centuries of the church?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Because it was.

Your reply reminds me of the common anti-Catholic list of when all the 'errors' were invented. I'm sure you know the list.

I guess St. Augustine wrote after December 8th, 1854 then when he wrote "As regards the mother of God, I will not allow any question whatever of sin."

The Greek Fathers too, who spoke of the sinlessness of Mary, her being 'pre-purified' must also have done so on orders from the Vatican, but only after December 8th, 1854.

Edward Gibbon says that the Catholic Church stole the idea from Islam, but then he wrote that in 1788, and that's before 1854.

The hymn 'Tota pulchera es' was pretty clear about it all, but instead of being written after 1854 it comes from the fourth century, before Islam even existed.

Here is another interesting quote from quite a bit before 1854, in fact 1527, although exact authorship is uncertain and the purported author removed it from later editions: "It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin."

Point being this was not invented in 1854. It was nothing new to Augustine 1450 years earlier. Mary the sinner is a pious invention of Protestants. A sinless Mary is boringly old. But you said it was invented by the Vatican in 1854, on December 8th. That's pretty far fetched, harder to believe than to believe Mary was actually sinless.

 

[Athanasius377]

Your reply reminds me of the common anti-Catholic list of when all the 'errors' were invented. I'm sure you know the list.

The anti-catholic charge again. I usually hear this whenever the person with whom I am speaking lacks a sound argument. It provides the person a way out without having to respond to anything that's been presented. That is exactly what you have done here.

I guess St. Augustine wrote after December 8th, 1854 then when he wrote "As regards the mother of God, I will not allow any question whatever of sin."

This is another common tactic, quote a father in half a sentence and not give the source. So I had a pretty good idea of where this came from already. Here is the context of the quote and the source down to the page:

He then enumerates those “who not only lived without sin, but are described as having led holy lives,—Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was espoused, John.” And he adds the names of some women,—“Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her,” he says, “we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it.” We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin

Augustine of Hippo. (1887). A Treatise on Nature and Grace. In P. Schaff (Ed.), P. Holmes (Trans.), Saint Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings (Vol. 5, p. 135). New York: Christian Literature Company.

You will notice if you read the quotation carefully that Augustine is not arguing for the sinless of Mary but rather that he does not want to take the issue out of respect for the Lord. Furthermore, the argument here is of actual sin not original sin which is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception teaches.

The Greek Fathers too, who spoke of the sinlessness of Mary, her being 'pre-purified' must also have done so on orders from the Vatican, but only after December 8th, 1854.

It depends on the time frame. Do you have anything before the fourth century? Please give source when replying.

Edward Gibbon says that the Catholic Church stole the idea from Islam, but then he wrote that in 1788, and that's before 1854.

The wonders of the genuine and apocryphal gospels 86 are profusely heaped on his head; and the Latin church has not disdained to borrow from the Koran the immaculate conception 87 of his virgin mother. Yet Jesus was a mere mortal; and, at the day of judgment, his testimony will serve to condemn both the Jews, who reject him as a prophet, and the Christians, who adore him as the Son of God. The malice of his enemies aspersed his reputation, and conspired against his life; but their intention only was guilty; a phantom or a criminal was substituted on the cross; and the innocent saint was translated to the seventh heaven.

I would have avoided this quote. You are assuming he means the same thing you mean with Immaculate Conception. There's not enough here to figure out what he means.

The hymn 'Tota pulchera es' was pretty clear about it all, but instead of being written after 1854 it comes from the fourth century, before Islam even existed.

There is an assertion this hymn comes from the fourth century. It may indeed, but I cannot find if it was in the same form it is today or has been altered or when it was composed. The Liber Usualis doesn't reference where the version was taken.

Here is another interesting quote from quite a bit before 1854, in fact 1527, although exact authorship is uncertain and the purported author removed it from later editions: "It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin."

If you are going to quote something could you at least provide the name of the work so I reference said work?

Point being this was not invented in 1854. It was nothing new to Augustine 1450 years earlier. Mary the sinner is a pious invention of Protestants. A sinless Mary is boringly old. But you said it was invented by the Vatican in 1854, on December 8th. That's pretty far fetched, harder to believe than to believe Mary was actually sinless.

Paul didn't get message in Romans when he wrote under inspiration from God the Holy Spirit:
. . . for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23 NASB)

Clearly it was new to Augustine because he didn't write about it. No protestant I know ever said Mary was some gross sinner. She did need a savior though. From the Magnificat:

MY soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46-47)

No person free from original sin needs a saviour. The belief precedes 1854 but it was not dogma. A faithful RC could deny the teaching without sinning. What happens to the person who rejects the dogma who died December 1 1854. A week later he church changes official teaching and now he is a heretic. What happens in that case? What about the council fathers at Nicea that didn't believe in the dogma. Are they heretics now too. Do you see the problem Rome created when it changed its teaching? There is just the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 3). It doesn't nor can it change according to scripture.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The belief precedes 1854 ....

And yet you were quite clear earlier that it was made up by the Vatican in 1854. Thank you for now saying the belief precedes 1854. And it did by quite a bit. You may not like the clues I gave you but I could have included many more. It's pretty solid back to the fourth century. And not as an invention either. Unless, again, Gabriel invented it, as she is the one who spoke "Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη". He said a mouthful with that.

You close with something interesting, relevant, but that isn't so definitive as you think. You see lots of Catholics know the Magnificat. They know that Mary rejoiced in her Savior. That is not a surprise to Catholics. She was saved, and being saved from falling is every bit as real as being saved after falling. That verse is far from a proof-text against the immaculate conception.

Your closing argument was about change in Church teaching. It works, except it also works against a teaching like the Trinity, which was defined at a point in history. You would rightly say the teaching about the Trinity had earlier antecedents, and I would say that the Immaculate Conception also had earlier antecedents. It was not 'invented' just like the Trinity was not 'invented' no matter how the Jehovah's Witnesses might want to claim that it was.

 

[Athanasius377]

And yet you were quite clear earlier that it was made up by the Vatican in 1854. Thank you for now saying the belief precedes 1854. And it did by quite a bit. You may not like the clues I gave you but I could have included many more. It's pretty solid back to the fourth century. And not as an invention either. Unless, again, Gabriel invented it, as she is the one who spoke "Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη". He said a mouthful with that.

Of course you ignored everything I said. Pious opinions of the middle ages is really where the belief began. Pious opinions don't make truth. The fact is Rome created a dogma out of thin air in 1854 and then demanded everyone believe it under pain of mortal sin. Whether it was believed by people hundreds of years prior is irrelevant. You don't find the doctrine in Scripture or the first centuries of church history because no one believed it. Rome appeals to history but the problem is she never goes back far enough. That's why your scholars are mostly liberal because they see the same problems that I do. There is a serious problem when your apologetics ministries like Catholic Answers are far more faithful than your scholars.
Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη or Hail, Greetings to grace bestowed, the angelic greeting. Hardly a mouthful but your tradition forces meaning where none exists.

She was saved, and being saved from falling is every bit as real as being saved after falling.

Where in the text does it say that? She sang the Magnificat After her meeting with Gabriel. Your statement is pure eisegesis.

It works, except it also works against a teaching like the Trinity, which was defined at a point in history.

That's hardly an appropriate analogy. The earliest christians believed and taught the Holy Trinity because they experienced God as Trinity. The did not teach the Immaculate conception. Furthermore I can prove the Holy Trinity from scripture. You cannot say the same for the Immaculate conception.