Mary's immaculate conception

[concretecamper]

Yes the name claim it stuff is not very useful.

sorry, I speak the truth. The truth should be useful.

The Gospel of Matthew is expired because it is God-breathed out. Now if you need your Church to tell you that I guess if that works for you. I will say seems straight forward to me.

20-20 hindsight is a great thing. People amaze themselves thinking that they are sages becasue of it.

I just find that Raymond brown is a little more convincing in this matter.

are we to be surprised at this?

 

[BBAS 64]

sorry, I speak the truth. The truth should be useful.
20-20 hindsight is a great thing. People amaze themselves thinking that they are sages becasue of it.
are we to be surprised at this?

Good Day, CC


No you should not be ... any more than we are surprised that a member of the Roman Church believes what they say is true, even tough it Historically void and not in found Scripture.


In Him,

Bill

 

[concretecamper]

Good Day, CC


No you should not be ... any more than we are surprised that a member of the Roman Church believes what they say is true, even tough it Historically void and not in found Scripture.


In Him,

Bill

you believe Raymond Brown, I'll believe the Church and the fathers of the Church

 

[BBAS 64]

you believe Raymond Brown, I'll believe the Church and the fathers of the Church

Good Day,

Well your total confidence in your ability to understand the Church Fathers (history) above that of Raymond Brown is impressive...

Not convincing.. but impressive none the less.

IN Him

Bill

 

[concretecamper]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

[Athanasius377]

St. Athanasius of Alexandria: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.”

This is Psuedo-Athanasius. The real Athanasius(ca 296-373) did not write these words. They come from a later work in Coptic known as the "Homily of the Papyrus of Turin" and is dated about the middle of the 9th century.

Origen: "This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one."

This appears to be a forgery as well, or at the very least is understood to be disputed. There is plenty of re-quoting this material like the one above but no one seems to know where to find Homily I. The closest I came was from a book written by Bishop Ullathorne in the 1800's but there's no footnote or bibliography so who knows where Ullathorne got the quote from. I guess that's what ULL 94 means in the citations I have seen though this quote is on page 119 of the text linked below.

https://ia800309.us.archive.org/8/items/immaculateconcep00ulla/immaculateconcep00ulla.pdf

Martin Luther: "God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus."

Here's the original quote in context:
In the papacy they used to tell a story: The devil once came to church to mass, and when in the confession of the Christian faith, which they called the Patrem, they sang the words: " Et homo factum est"— the Son of God was made man—and the people did not kneel down but stood, he struck one on the mouth, rebuked him and said: You ruffian, are you not ashamed that you stand here like a stock, and do not fall down for joy? If the Son of God had become our brother, like yours, we would not know what to do for joy.

I do not think that this is true ; for the devil is too decided in his enmity to us and the Lord Jesus ; but this is true, that he who conceived this story had the right spirit, and well understood how great an honor was conferred upon us in that the Son of God became man; not like Eve nor Adam, who was made of the earth; but He is still more nearly related to us, since He was born of the flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, like other men, except that the virgin was alone, and being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, conceived this blessed fruit without sin and by the Holy Spirit. In other respects He is like unto us, and a natural Son of a woman.

Adam and Eve were not born, but created. God made Adam out of the dust of the earth, and the woman of his rib. How much nearer is Christ to us than Eve to her husband Adam, since He is truly our flesh and blood. Such honor we should highly esteem and well take to heart, that the Son of God became flesh, and that there is no difference at all between His and our flesh, only that His flesh is without sin. For He was so conceived of the Holy Ghost, and God poured out so richly His Holy Spirit into the soul and body of the Virgin Mary that without any sin she conceived and bore our Lord Jesus. Aside from this, in all other respects, He was like other men; He ate, drank, was hungry, thirsty, cold like other men. Such and similar natural infirmities, which have descended upon us by reason of sin, He, who was without sin, bore and had like unto us, as St. Paul says: " He was made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man."


Dr. Martin Luther's House-Postil

Reading the sermon it seems that Luther believed that Mary was sinless from the Conception of Our Lord forward in time and not from Mary's birth. That would put Luther in line with several other ECF's with regards to Mary.

The picture I am getting is there are RC's who play fast and loose with supposed quotes from ECF's without ever having researched them in context or even to see if they are from who they say they are. To be clear I am not accusing you of doing such a thing but rather those who continue to parrot these quotes over and over again knowing they are not what they appear to be at first glance.

 

[concretecamper]

To be clear I am not accusing you of doing such a thing but rather those who continue to parrot these quotes over and over again knowing they are not what they appear to be at first glance.

in other words, I cant refute the quotes so I'll just cast a general haze over everything.

 

[Athanasius377]

in other words, I cant refute the quotes so I'll just cast a general haze over everything.

The best part of making up quotes is they can't be refuted because they can't be sourced. I have almost 70 volumes of the ECF Including a set (40+ volumes) from a Catholic University of America Press so these quotes should be easy to find, right? Wrong. They appear out of thin air at Catholic Answers with no citation that can be tracked down and get repeated ad infinitum so no one really knows where the quotes came from. There really is no excuse for this because sites like New Advent (another Catholic source) are available for everyone. My advice to you is that if you can't find it at New Advent you are likely dealing with a dubious or disputed source. We as Christians need to be telling the truth not parroting falsehoods.

Remember what Abraham Lincoln said, "Don't trust everything you read on the internet".

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The rejection of the Immaculate Conception started well after the Reformation...curious, isnt it. I think that once people started their path away from His Church, novel ideas started to be concocted.

the 2000 yr old Orthodox Church never, nor does it now, hold to the RCC doctrine of the IC of Mary

 

[bbbbbbb]

the 2000 yr old Orthodox Church never, nor does it now, hold to the RCC doctrine of the IC of Mary

Yes, I find it offensive when folks make unfounded claims about the doctrines and beliefs of my own church.

 

[Major1]

For it is reasonable to believe that she, who brought forth "the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth," received greater privileges of grace than all others: hence we read (Lk. 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words: "Hail full of grace!"

Moreover, it is to be observed that it was granted, by way of privilege, to others, to be sanctified in the womb; for instance, to Jeremias, to whom it was said (Jer. 1:5): "Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee"; and again, to John the Baptist, of whom it is written (Lk. 1:15): "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb." It is therefore with reason that we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb.

... Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan.): "The sanctification, by which we become temples of God, is only of those who are born again." But no one is born again, who was not born previously. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb.

Reply to Objection 2: Augustine speaks according to the common law, by reason of which no one is regenerated by the sacraments, save those who are previously born. But God did not so limit His power to the law of the sacraments, but that He can bestow His grace, by special privilege, on some before they are born from the womb.

Objection 3: Further, whoever is sanctified by grace is cleansed from sin, both original and actual. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb, it follows that she was then cleansed from original sin. Now nothing but original sin could hinder her from entering the heavenly kingdom. If therefore she had died then, it seems that she would have entered the gates of heaven. But this was not possible before the Passion of Christ, according to the Apostle (Heb. 10:19): "We have [Vulg.: 'having'] therefore a confidence in the entering into the Holies by His blood." It seems therefore that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb.

... Reply to Objection 3: The Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb from original sin, as to the personal stain; but she was not freed from the guilt to which the whole nature is subject, so as to enter into Paradise otherwise than through the Sacrifice of Christ; the same also is to be said of the Holy Fathers who lived before Christ.

ST IIIa Q. 27 — Aquinas 101

REAL history says that in 1854 the Immaculate Conception of Mary was a move had the overwhelming support of the church's hierarchy, although a few, including the Archbishop of Paris, warned that it is not stated in the New Testament and could not be deduced from it.

Jeremiah 1:5 says........
God is telling the prophet Jeremiah that he had a God-given purpose. Let’s look at the context:

"The word of the Lord came to me:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I dedicated you,
a prophet to the nations I appointed you".

Jeremiah 1:5 has nothing to do with Mary or sinlesness what so ever. It is all about the Prophet Jeremiah and God calling him and knowing that he was going to be a prophet.

Now as for Luke 1:28........
Jimmy Akin says......
“That’s a passage that many people have thought echoes, um, the immaculate conception because certainly Mary’s immaculate conception was something that happened, she’s a woman, and it happened to her in the past, namely at the very beginning of her life, and it continues to effect her in the present, because she’s still immaculate as a result of that.”

Now this alone appears to be the typical Roman Catholic answer on Luke 1:28. Akin though goes on to state that this type of understanding is consistent with what the Greek word means, but it’s not something the word kecharitomene requires: “This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn’t immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense.” He then gives the example of using the term of Mary’s grandmother. But next was the real gem in Akin’s answer. At the end of the clip, he states, “This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together.”

This is a frank admission that the text does not plainly support the Roman Catholic interpretation and needs to be supplemented by another ultimate authority. For all of Keating’s appeals to hidden meaning from the Greek, and for Madrid’s “The original import of this phrase is lost in English translation,” we now have Jimmy Akin finally admitting that the immaculate conception has to be read into the text.

In other words of plain English, the Immaculate Conception of Mary IS NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE!

Jimmy Akin: The Immaculate Conception has to be Read into Luke 1:28 – Alpha and Omega Ministries

 

[Major1]

the 2000 yr old Orthodox Church never, nor does it now, hold to the RCC doctrine of the IC of Mary

May I ask you to consider .........
She had no original sin (CCC 508), and never committed sin (CCC 493).

 

[Major1]

Good Day,

As to the more modern Roman scholarship on this issue Raymond Brown note:

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

In Him,

Bill

So it still stands that the RCC teaches extra Biblical thoughts from men instead of the Word of God.

 

[Major1]

Ironic using a quote from Luther when convenient. Also, Athanasius is another excellent example to prove the point... The link below supports (pp. 9-10) the idea that Athanasius was more specifically defending against Arianism. Again, the reason for the veneration of Mary was an extension of Christological concern. Obviously "protestant" carries with it no implication of unified theology, but most of those that I'm aware affirm the virgin birth of Christ and His deity in hypostasis.

Mariology in the First Five Centuries: An Introduction to the Development of Mariology in the Early Church

Teachings like this seemed to emerge from the hyperbolic defenses removed from context:


Nope.

Let's define "immaculate conception" properly according to historical context and it has everything to do with Jesus and little to do with Mary.

Actually, "immaculate conception" properly according to historical context and it has everything to do with Jesus and NOTHING to do with Mary.

 

[Major1]

What's the opposite of watering down? Saturating? The term "immaculate conception" is implicated with different understandings over time, co-redeemer being one such example. The patristic fathers defended her role as the Theotokos to preserve a proper understanding of Christ's deity through the virgin birth. As certain aspects of Christology came under attack, such as Nestorianism, the early church expanded it's teachings regarding Mary not merely for the sake of Mariology. When did the Nestorian controversy start? What about the first of the reformation? When did the Council of Trent take place? When was the immaculate conception dogmatically defined?

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

May I ask you to consider .........
She had no original sin (CCC 508), and never committed sin (CCC 493).

Nothing to consider. The EOC does not believe in original sin (that is a Roman church concept as is the IC).

 

[concretecamper]

In other words of plain English, the Immaculate Conception of Mary IS NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE

In Plain English, you have been challenged to show where in the bible, that the bible says it is the sum total of Divine Revelation. You have yet to show where the Bible says it contains all necessary truths a Christian should believe.

Hint: many of us already know the answer.

You beleive in a man made idea not consistent with historical Christianity. Do as you please, but please dont project non biblical ideas on the rest of us.

 

[bbbbbbb]

In Plain English, you have been challenged to show where in the bible, that the bible says it is the sum total of Divine Revelation. You have yet to show where the Bible says it contains all necessary truths a Christian should believe.

Hint: many of us already know the answer.

You beleive in a man made idea not consistent with historical Christianity. Do as you please, but please dont project non biblical ideas on the rest of us.

What exactly is "historical Christianity"?

 

[concretecamper]

What exactly is "historical Christianity"?

Chistian history. Historical Christianity. How things were. What was believed.

Take your pick

PS: wayyyyy more than 500 years ago.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Chistian history. Historical Christianity. How things were. What was believed.

Take your pick

PS: wayyyyy more than 500 years ago.

Okay, I pick Eastern Orthodox Christian history. I guess that leaves you out.