Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
sorry, I speak the truth. The truth should be useful.Yes the name claim it stuff is not very useful.
20-20 hindsight is a great thing. People amaze themselves thinking that they are sages becasue of it.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.
are we to be surprised at this?I just find that Raymond brown is a little more convincing in this matter.
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?
you believe Raymond Brown, I'll believe the Church and the fathers of the ChurchGood 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
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.”
Origen: "This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one."
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."
in other words, I cant refute the quotes so I'll just cast a general haze over everything.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.
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.in other words, I cant refute the quotes so I'll just cast a general haze over everything.
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
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
the 2000 yr old Orthodox Church never, nor does it now, hold to the RCC doctrine of the IC of Mary
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
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.
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?
May I ask you to consider .........
She had no original sin (CCC 508), and never committed sin (CCC 493).
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.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.
Chistian history. Historical Christianity. How things were. What was believed.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?