Peanut Gallery: The Immaculate conception of Mary!

[BreadAlone]

This is the Peanut Gallery (a thread for comments) for the debate: The Immaculate conception of Mary!

The debate can be found at the following: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48257502#post48257502

1) The topic and title of the debate.

The Immaculate conception of Mary!

2) The members who will be participating in the debate and what positions they will take. Someone will usually affirm a position and someone else will oppose.

Affirmative: Athanasias

Opposition: ahiggs

3) The number of rounds within the debate. If each party makes three alternating posts, that would equal a debate with three rounds.

3

4) Whether the posts will be made concurrently or alternating and which party goes first. Generally the affirmative position goes first but this is flexible.

Affirmative

6) Time limit between posts. You may select any length of time (within reason) as a maximum amount your opponent may take to formulate a response. If the time limit is 1 week, that means within one week of the affirmative making his/her post, the opposing position needs to reply. The post can be made earlier, of course.

1 Week (7 Days)

7) The maximum length for each post. You can set a limit of say 1000 or even 5000 words for each post in a round. The length is the upper limit.

5,000 word Maximum

8) Whether or not quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule but within the scope the participants may decide to disallow quotes or limit them to a certain amount of the overall word total.

Of course..

9) And, finally, the start date of the debate.

ASAP

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IMHO, the "debate" has been lost with the opening post....

The apologist for this dogma has freely admitted that he has nothing to support this teaching which is promoted as dogma of the greatest certainty and importance. Nothing.

The entire argument seem to pin on "types." But types REQUIRE a fulfillment - something in the NT that states it is a type - otherwise, anyone can just say "this is referring to fuzzy creatures living on the Moon of Endor" and there would be nothing to support that, nothing to reject that, creating an entirely meaningless hermeneutic that has no basis whatsoever in the text. What is being suggested is pure eisegesis. A view assumed to be true, then pumping that view INTO texts that teach no such thing because "it's implied by a type." Frankly, ANYTHING can be "supported" in this way. ANYTHING.


I sure hope SOMETHING is present to defend and support this dogma. Otherwise, we're left with a pretty boring "debate" with one side's entire argument being, "it's IMPLIED by a type." IMHO, that's entirely worthless. I spent a year in very intense discussions with a Mormon teacher and apologist (and his friends) and frankly, that opening argument makes Mormonism look downright logical, intellectual and biblical by comparison.

Let's hope for better things to come.....





.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

IMHO, the "debate" has been lost with the opening post....

The apologist for this dogma has freely admitted that he has nothing to support this teaching which is promoted as dogma of the greatest certainty and importance. Nothing.


The entire argument seem to pin on "types." But types REQUIRE a fulfillment - something in the NT that states it is a type - otherwise, anyone can just say "this is referring to fuzzy creatures living on the Moon of Endor" and there would be nothing to support that, nothing to reject that, creating an entirely meaningless hermeneutic that has no basis whatsoever in the text. What is being suggested is pure eisegesis. A view assumed to be true, then pumping that view INTO texts that teach no such thing because "it's implied by a type." Frankly, ANYTHING can be "supported" in this way. ANYTHING.


I sure hope SOMETHING is present to defend and support this dogma. Otherwise, we're left with a pretty boring "debate" with one side's entire argument being, "it's IMPLIED by a type." IMHO, that's entirely worthless. I spent a year in very intense discussions with a Mormon teacher and apologist (and his friends) and frankly, that opening argument makes Mormonism look downright logical, intellectual and biblical by comparison.

Let's hope for better things to come.....



.

What are you talking about??



Athanasias said... the Immaculate Conception is implicit in scripture and not explicit. There are many doctrines that the bible teach that are implied but not fully spelled out such as the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the Immaculate conception. In order to understand the implicit doctrines we must look to the bible as a whole and in context and put the pieces of the puzzle together.



sounds like support to me


That you dismiss typology is your issue. It is a legitimate theological use employed by more than just Catholics and Orthodox.




pax

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Athanasias said... the Immaculate Conception is implicit in scripture and not explicit.

ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be said to be "implied by invisible words not present." That has no relation whatsoever to the text supporting the teaching. That has no relation to the words OF THE TEXT supporting the teaching. It rather means that the text admittedly does not support it.

I'm not involved in this debate, but my advise to our friend would be to not point to what he just admitted doesn't support his view. He would be better advised to go to the source of this view: Tradition. That, of course, opens a whole other issue, but at least he can point to declarations and opinions. He CAN support that the view was embraced some centuries after the death of Mary and the Apostles (of course, so was Gnosticism, Arianism, etc. so that, too, would lead to another debate). The "It's our tradition!" argument is one he can support and win. He's already surrendered any other defense, IMHO.

That you dismiss typology is your issue.

I don't necessarily dismiss it, but obviously the case is very, very weak unless the fulfillment of it is also noted in Scripture. Otherwise, ANYONE can say "Noah was a type of the Bishop of Rome and the Ark of Catholic Denomination" and while that's a nice OPINION, it actually has nothing to do with the text - the text doesn't say that or remotely, wildly even suggest that, it's a view imputed TO the text. Now, if the NT says that Noah is a type for the Pope - that's an entirely different situation. I could argue that Moses is a type for Senator Obama and supports a dogma that he will lead us out of slavery and into the Promised Land - but of course, the biblical text says so such thing and in no way supports that view. It is a view IMPUTED INTO the text, not taken from the text - and thus is in no sense supportive of the view.


I'm hoping for better things to come in that debate....



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

[/color]

ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be said to be "implied by invisible words not present." That has no relation whatsoever to the text supporting the teaching. That has no relation to the words OF THE TEXT supporting the teaching. It rather means that the text admittedly does not support it.

I'm not involved in this debate, but my advise to our friend would be to not point to what he just admitted doesn't support his view. He would be better advised to go to the source of this view: Tradition. That, of course, opens a whole other issue, but at least he can point to declarations and opinions. He CAN support that the view was embraced some centuries after the death of Mary and the Apostles (of course, so was Gnosticism, Arianism, etc. so that, too, would lead to another debate). The "It's our tradition!" argument is one he can support and win. He's already surrendered any other defense, IMHO.
[/color]




I don't necessarily dismiss it, but obviously the case is very, very weak unless the fulfillment of it is also noted in Scripture. Otherwise, ANYONE can say "Noah was a type of the Bishop of Rome and the Ark of Catholic Denomination" and while that's a nice OPINION, it actually has nothing to do with the text - the text doesn't say that or remotely, wildly even suggest that, it's a view imputed TO the text. Now, if the NT says that Noah is a type for the Pope - that's an entirely different situation. I could argue that Moses is a type for Senator Obama and supports a dogma that he will lead us out of slavery and into the Promised Land - but of course, the biblical text says so such thing and in no way supports that view. It is a view IMPUTED INTO the text, not taken from the text - and thus is in no sense supportive of the view.


I'm hoping for better things to come in that debate....



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah


.

I don't necessarily dismiss it

Selectivity as you see it. What use do you have for typology in Scripture?




pax

 

[BreadAlone]

I generally agree with what California Josiah is saying. I have a couple of more specific iossues:

Another common objection that non-Catholics raise is Romans 3:23 which says "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". The context of St. Paul's writings explains how this message does not pertain to Mary. Paul, when he used the word "all", was not describing every single person but rather he was using a general meaning. One can tell this by the context. Paul was speaking of personal sin and arguing that just because one was a Jew does not give him special claim to salvation. All have fallen short, both Jews and Gentiles. If St. Paul were speaking of every single human being that was born he would have to include infants, the mentally handi-capped, and Jesus, all of whom cannot sin. They are exceptions.

There is NOTHING in the text to suggest that this is the case. The original Greek is as follows:

παντες adjective - nominative plural masculine
pas pas: apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole

I don't see any exceptions in there. And the mentally handicapped/infants most certainly ARE sinful. Hence the Psalmist writes that we are sinful from birth. And Christ is no exception, he is God, human yes, but God also, thus WHY he is sinless. Mary cannot be sinless unless she is God..

 

[Athanasias]

I generally agree with what California Josiah is saying. I have a couple of more specific iossues:



There is NOTHING in the text to suggest that this is the case. The original Greek is as follows:

παντες adjective - nominative plural masculine
pas pas: apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole

I don't see any exceptions in there. And the mentally handicapped/infants most certainly ARE sinful. Hence the Psalmist writes that we are sinful from birth. And Christ is no exception, he is God, human yes, but God also, thus WHY he is sinless. Mary cannot be sinless unless she is God..

Hi Bread,
I find your objection worthy and solid. I see a fatal flaw in it of coarse. Maybe this objection will be rasied by Ahiggs in the debate. Then I can answer it with what I feel is a strong biblical answer. Anyway, if this question does not come up in the debate please feel free to write me after the entire debate is over and I can explain the clear Catholic answer to your good objection. Your a great thinker!

May the Lord be with you always my friend!

In Jesus Ascended through Mary Assumed,
Athanasias

 

[Athanasias]

[/color]


I don't necessarily dismiss it, but obviously the case is very, very weak unless the fulfillment of it is also noted in Scripture.


I'm hoping for better things to come in that debate....



Thank you!


Pax




- Josiah





.

Who says the fulfillment of the types of Mary as Ark of the covenant and New Eve are not noted in scripture? I gave strong evidence that both John and Luke went out their way to display that they were. I know of protestant scholars who would also beleive these typologies are logical and come from scripture. I think you are just looking for a phrase in the bible that says "Mary is the ark" or "Mary is the New Eve" or "Mary is sinless". That works well for doctrines of the Christian faith that are explicit in scripture. The problem here is that when a doctrine is implicit in scripture a direct phrase is not there but a clear biblical logical connection is. You beleive in the Holy Trinity and that doctrine is implicit in the bible. Do you just look in the bible for a phrase that says "God is a Trinity". No you look to evidence in the bible that suggest it his nature is Triune but the bible does not come out and say it explicitly. These types of Mary are strongly "suggested" implicitly in scripture just like the Trinity is and the early Christians taught by the apostles and their successors would agree. I would suggest you go back and prayerfully re-read the entire opening statement with bible in hand before making the statement that you did!

Peace be with you always!

God bless you always!

In Jesus the King through Mary the Queen Mother,
Athanasias

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think you are just looking for a phrase in the bible that says "Mary is the ark" or "Mary is the New Eve" or "Mary is sinless". That works well for doctrines of the Christian faith that are explicit in scripture. The problem here is that when a doctrine is implicit in scripture a direct phrase is not there but a clear biblical logical connection is.

Then, IMHO, you REALLY have your "work" cut out for you - if that, indeed, is the path you intend to take in this debate...

You are agreeing that Scripture doesn't support this "type" you have created, and that it's only "implicit" (meaning, it's not there in any objective sense but rather is expressed in invisible words that cannot be seen but must be imputed). Difficult to do, since for it to be a "clear biblical logic" it needs to be biblical - and you admitted in post #1 that it's not biblical. IMHO, you "gave away" your point right off the top.

Now, IMHO, IF you had begun with the Tradition argument and THEN tried to reveal that it's not conflictive but rather quite in harmony with Scripture (the approach most of the Catholic apologist take here), I think you'd be leading with a stronger hand (IMHO, your only hand) - but too late for that, now. And that "hand" has an altogether predictable outcome (perhaps you reason for not going with that).

These types of Mary are strongly "suggested" implicitly in scripture and the early Christians taught by the apostles and their successors would agree.

1. Anything can be "suggested" by words that don't exist. You've already admitted the teaching isn't found in Scripture and that any "CLEAR BIBLICAL logic" is impossible because it's not found in the Bible.

2. It will be interesting for me to see the earliest CLEAR witnesses you'll have to the Immaculate Conception (well, obviously, they wont' be witnesses, LOL). This is a dogma not embraced by the OO or EO, it's unique to the singular Catholic Church, and I don't think it was dogma until quite recently (I seem to forget the date off the top of my head just now). Anyway, I'm sure you'll post a goodly number of "early Christians taught by the Apostles" which, of course, now requires you to note which Apostle taught each of the ones you quote. Now, friend, when you quote from these several, my advise is to do as you say: Reveal that he was taught by the Apostles (share which Apostle) and give the historical reference, share the quote with the full reference (because you opponent is going to look it up), and be SURE to quote only those statements which CLEARLY are teaching that Mary was CONCEIVED without any sin (please don't bother with quotes that aren't about Mary or her Conception). Frankly, I didn't know that there were several ECF taught by the Apostles who taught the Immaculate Conception - so I'm very interested in this point you've here revealed is "up your sleave!!!!" In fact, I thought there were only 2 or 3 ECF associated directly with the Apostles at all!! I'm very curious to see your list, the evidence that they were directly taught by the Apostles (and which one of the Apostles) and their clear affirmation about Mary's conception. I've been down this road a few times with the Marian dogmas and, to be honest, don't remember - some do have some pretty early and clear affirmations, some are shockingly late, I don't remember which go with which dogma and frankly, I don't remember ANY of those ECF being directly taught by any Apostles. I'm very much looking forward to this part of your presentation! IMHO, the whole enchilada probably hangs on these quotes, so make 'em good! Again, stress which Apostle taught them and be sure the quotes are expressly about her conception.

3. Again, while I think this is your only hand (especially if you do as you say you will), please remember, IMHO, if you have 10 million people saying it's true - that doesn't make it true. Please keep that in mind. I can find you 10 million people who say that Jesus visited the Americas and founded His Church here via His Apostle Joseph Smith - and yes, they'll insist that it's all in the NT - right there in clear biblical logic, albeit in IMPLIED words. Don't expect this ALONE to get you too far; should be considered, IMHO, especially if the quotes are extremely clear, about her conception and from those who clearly could have learned it from specific Apostles. But don't expect to "win the day" on this point alone. A bit of advise: be cautious of any argument YOU (as a Catholic) would not accept from a Protestant or Mormon - it will be used against you.


Oh, one more little thing (IF I may). Don't take any of this personally. Actually, I'm glad YOU are the one taking the "it's dogma" side. This really has nothing to do with love, reverence, devotion, esteem or adoration for Our Blessed Lady, it has to do with a particular teaching. You are in a debate about dogma, not devotion or faith. I'm not so familiar with the "it's not dogma" presenter, but I hope you'll not take anything he might post as an attack on your, Our Lady or your spirituality (all of which I deeply respect).

Peace be with you always!

... and also with you!


I'll "watch" the debate with some interest. I don't have any particular opinion about this issue. As a Lutheran, many in my "camp" embrace this as pious opinion (including Luther and my own pastor), some don't. I honestly can't say that I have a view, one way or the other.


Good luck!


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[Athanasias]

Then, IMHO, you REALLY have your "work" cut out for you - if that, indeed, is the path you intend to take in this debate...

You are agreeing that Scripture doesn't support this "type" you have created, and that it's only "implicit" ........ Difficult to do, since for it to be a "clear biblical logic" it needs to be biblical - and you admitted in post #1 that it's not biblical. IMHO, you "gave away" your point right off the top.

I am not agreeing with that. Were did you get that idea from? I never said that scripture does not support the types! I said and showed in my paper how scripture does support the types strongly. so I have no idea what your talking about. Were did I say it was not biblical? I said it was biblical but implicit just like the dogma of the Trinity and the hypostatic union.

Oh, one more little thing (IF I may). Don't take any of this personally. Actually, I'm glad YOU are the one taking the "it's dogma" side. This really has nothing to do with love, reverence, devotion, esteem or adoration for Our Blessed Lady, it has to do with a particular teaching. You are in a debate about dogma, not devotion or faith. I'm not so familiar with the "it's not dogma" presenter, but I hope you'll not take anything he might post as an attack on your, Our Lady or your spirituality (all of which I deeply respect).

Well it is at least reassuring to know that you do have love and devotion to our lady. Amen! She is our spiritual Mother(Rev 12:17 JN 19:26-27). Dogma is about faith! Dogma is infallibly defined doctrine(as Catholics understand it) which we have faith in! I respect your disagreements too. I once dated a LCMS Lutheran girl and we used to go to each others Sunday services. She was a great Christian. She eventually wanted to pray the rosary with me. Lutherans more than anyone have alot in common with the Catholic church. I had several Lutheran Seminary friends who used to go out for beers with me and discuss theology and bible study. They were great!

... and also with you!


I'll "watch" the debate with some interest. I don't have any particular opinion about this issue. As a Lutheran, many in my "camp" embrace this as pious opinion (including Luther and my own pastor), some don't. I honestly can't say that I have a view, one way or the other.


Good luck!


Pax


- Josiah






.

I think that is super cool that both your Pastor and Luther embrace the Immaculate Conception. I hope this debate at least helps you see why Luther saw this as a doctrine that did not contradict scripture.

May the Lord grant you peace of heart forever.

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasias

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

1. Anything can be "suggested" by words that don't exist. You've already admitted the teaching isn't found in Scripture and that any "CLEAR BIBLICAL logic" is impossible because it's not found in the Bible.

2. It will be interesting for me to see the earliest CLEAR witnesses you'll have to the Immaculate Conception (well, obviously, they wont' be witnesses, LOL). This is a dogma not embraced by the OO or EO, it's unique to the singular Catholic Church, and I don't think it was dogma until quite recently (I seem to forget the date off the top of my head just now). Anyway, I'm sure you'll post a goodly number of "early Christians taught by the Apostles" which, of course, now requires you to note which Apostle taught each of the ones you quote. Now, friend, when you quote from these several, my advise is to do as you say: Reveal that he was taught by the Apostles (share which Apostle) and give the historical reference, share the quote with the full reference (because you opponent is going to look it up), and be SURE to quote only those statements which CLEARLY are teaching that Mary was CONCEIVED without any sin (please don't bother with quotes that aren't about Mary or her Conception). Frankly, I didn't know that there were several ECF taught by the Apostles who taught the Immaculate Conception - so I'm very interested in this point you've here revealed is "up your sleave!!!!" In fact, I thought there were only 2 or 3 ECF associated directly with the Apostles at all!! I'm very curious to see your list, the evidence that they were directly taught by the Apostles (and which one of the Apostles) and their clear affirmation about Mary's conception. I've been down this road a few times with the Marian dogmas and, to be honest, don't remember - some do have some pretty early and clear affirmations, some are shockingly late, I don't remember which go with which dogma and frankly, I don't remember ANY of those ECF being directly taught by any Apostles. I'm very much looking forward to this part of your presentation! IMHO, the whole enchilada probably hangs on these quotes, so make 'em good! Again, stress which Apostle taught them and be sure the quotes are expressly about her conception.


I'll "watch" the debate with some interest. I don't have any particular opinion about this issue. As a Lutheran, many in my "camp" embrace this as pious opinion (including Luther and my own pastor), some don't. I honestly can't say that I have a view, one way or the other.


Good luck!


Pax


- Josiah

.

FYI...Eastern Orthodoxy does not officially or dogmatically regard the Immaculate Conception as a heresy or even an error.

I keep looking for this "Singular Catholic Church" in the phone books and papers...its not there. Should I look under some kicked to death horse for it?




pax

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I hope this debate at least helps you see why Luther saw this as a doctrine that did not contradict scripture.

I've heard very few argue that the dogma explicitely CONTRADICTS Scripture. But then very few dogmas in Mormonism do, either. In fact, I'm not sure that most contemporary "heresies" exactly CONTRADICT Scripture - even in the cults. IMHO (and I'm very confident in your able opponent in this debate), this is a very unimpressed point that won't "help" your case at all. IF it is said that Mary was 15 feet tall, had pink hair and 100 children, none of that contradicts Scripture either - not at all. But does that reality substantiation dogmatically that Our Lady is 15 feet tall, has pink hair and 100 children? I hope you see the "flaw" in that argument....

I know why Luther embraced the view. Because it has solid, ecumenical consensus - it is "Tradition" in the Protestant understanding of that. However, he never presented it as dogma because it is not affirmed by Scripture. In the RCC, dogma requires two things: It is affirmed by the Tradition of the RCC (as chosen, defined and interpreted currently by the RCC) and has officially been declared as such by the RCC. It need not have ecumenical consensus OR Scriptural support (although, as you are displaying, Catholics would tend to argue that it should be IMPLICIT - ie implied by invisible words it alone "sees" - and it must not be CONTRADICTORY of Scripture). This is the same rubric used in the LDS. The EO (as I understand it - and that ain't saying much, I spent 5 years in the CC but I've never even worshipped in an EO church), a dogma must have ecumenical support (not just denominational) in a truely ecumenical council AND be affirmed by the laity - a considerably higher "bar" than in the RCC (thus, it has less dogma and the dogma it has tends to be less defined). As a Lutheran, we'd place great emphasis on Scriptural affirmation (a different issue than the LDS's "it doesn't exactly CONTRADICT Scripture as the LDS itself interprets and as the LDS itself arbitrates) and we'd look to ecumenical consensus - thus, for us, it's Scripture + Tradition rather than Scripture OR My Tradition. But, that said, we have a profound respect for Tradition even standing alone - at least for ancient, ecumenical Tradition. Thus, Luther's rather passionate embrace of the issue before us was embraced as "pious opinion" (as Lutherans refer to such).

But the debate to which you are party is not about "pious opinion" or if such CONTRADICTS Scripture. It's about DOGMA and the substantiating of it.


Good luck! I'll be watching with keen interest.



Pax!


- Josiah





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

FYI...Eastern Orthodoxy does not officially or dogmatically regard the Immaculate Conception as a heresy or even an error.

I never stated that it does.

What I stated it that it does not regard it as dogma. I could say even more, it doesn't in any sense officially embrace it at all. In fact, most of the Orthodox with whom I've conversed disagree with it - not because they disagree with the "sinless" status of Our Lady but the foundational "original sin" concept in which this dogma is framed.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is taught by only one denomination - the Catholic Church.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

[/font]

I never stated that it does.

What I stated it that it does not regard it as dogma. I could say even more, it doesn't in any sense officially embrace it at all. In fact, most of the Orthodox with whom I've conversed disagree with it - not because they disagree with the "sinless" status of Our Lady but the foundational "original sin" concept in which this dogma is framed.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is taught by only one denomination - the Catholic Church.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

Yes, CJ it was an FYI that it is not condemned either as heresy or even an error. The Orthodox do insist that the Blessed Mother is, "all-pure", "sinless", "Immaculate", (just as many Lutheran fathers do) Panagia.

In fact here is a Byzantine hymns concerning the conception of St. Anne...

"This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary..."; "She is conceived ... the only immaculate one"; "Having conceived the most pure dove...





pax

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes, CJ it was an FYI that it is not condemned either as heresy or even an error.

As I understand it from Orthodox friends, NOR is it regarded as dogma. In fact, my Orthodox friends have all rejected it as false - largely because of a disagreement about "original sin" on which this dogma is based (note it's emphasis on conception).

The debate is obviously about it's dogmatic status. Our Catholic friend is required to prove it (all of it) is dogmatically correct. Our Protestant friend obviously has the easier task - he need only show that that "bar" as not been attained. I think Orthodox would be in agreement with Protestants here, even if, like Luther and many Lutherans, they affirm as pious opinion (to use the Lutheran term) that Our Lady is without sin.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

As I understand it from Orthodox friends, NOR is it regarded as dogma. In fact, my Orthodox friends have all rejected it as false - largely because of a disagreement about "original sin" on which this dogma is based (note it's emphasis on conception).

Yes, you have stated this already. Is there anything new?

The debate is obviously about it's dogmatic status. Our Catholic friend is required to prove it (all of it) is dogmatically correct. Our Protestant friend obviously has the easier task - he need only show that that "bar" as not been attained. I think Orthodox would be in agreement with Protestants here, even if, like Luther and many Lutherans, they affirm as pious opinion (to use the Lutheran term) that Our Lady is without sin.


What Protestants today, including 99.99% of Lutherans would say (even pious opinion) that the Blessed Mother is without sin? Please substantiate this with sources.


Thank you.


Pax
- Josiah
.

pax

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As I understand it from Orthodox friends, NOR is it regarded as dogma. In fact, my Orthodox friends have all rejected it as false - largely because of a disagreement about "original sin" on which this dogma is based (note it's emphasis on conception).


The debate is obviously about it's dogmatic status. Our Catholic friend is required to prove it (all of it) is dogmatically correct. Our Protestant friend obviously has the easier task - he need only show that that "bar" as not been attained. I think Orthodox would be in agreement with Protestants here, even if, like Luther and many Lutherans, they affirm as pious opinion (to use the Lutheran term) that Our Lady is without sin.

What Protestants today, including 99.99% of Lutherans would say (even pious opinion) that the Blessed Mother is without sin?

The issue of the debate is not what Luther or Lutherans might or might not embrace - as a mere possibility, as pious opinion, as doctrine or as dogma. The issue is whether Mary was conceived "immaculately" and this can be documented as dogma - the highest level of certainty and importance. There is no other issue, that's it. IMHO, the Protestant has the "easier" task - he merely needs to show that that extremely high "bar" as not been attained, it has not been shown to the level of dogma that Mary was CONCEIVED "immaculately." Perhaps you think that the Protestant has the more difficult challenge.

Of course, the EO does not have any Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

The issue of the debate is not what Luther or Lutherans might or might not embrace - as a mere possibility, as pious opinion, as doctrine or as dogma.

The issue is whether Mary was conceived "immaculately" and this can be documented as dogma - the highest level of certainty and importance. There is no other issue, that's it. IMHO, the Protestant has the "easier" task - he merely needs to show that that extremely high "bar" as not been attained, it has not been shown to the level of dogma that Mary was CONCEIVED "immaculately." Perhaps you think that the Protestant has the more difficult challenge.

Of course, the EO does not have any Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

.

You basically brought it up...

I think Orthodox would be in agreement with Protestants here, even if, like Luther and many Lutherans, they affirm as pious opinion (to use the Lutheran term) that Our Lady is without sin.

Are you saying that there are some Lutherans which hold to Mary being without sin?? If so can you substantiate this with a source?



And of course the EO do not have any dogma about the Immaculate Conception. And again, its not heresy (officially) to them either. So whats the point?




pax

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Are you saying that there are some Lutherans which hold to Mary being without sin?? If so can you substantiate this with a source?

I don't think that I said that 99.99% are (as you noted). I do know that SOME are, my pastor is one. I think Luther was another. I have no stats, certainly not down to the thousandth of one percent. I have no opinion, one way or the other - so I don't count (LOL).

But, again, the debate is not about who believes what. It's about the dogmatic fact of Mary being conceived immaculately (and obviously this is unique).

Nor is it ONLY about Mary being sinless (although I concede that if she is, that probably could be assumed to be from the moment of the egg and sperm meeting, however, that does suggest some disagreement with Orthodoxy since it argues that EVERYONE is basically immaculately conceived, as I understand it).

And of course the EO do not have any dogma about the Immaculate Conception. And again, its not heresy (officially) to them either. So whats the point?

If it's not dogma in the EO, then the EO stands with the Protestant position that it is not dogma.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

I don't think that I said that 99.99% are (as you noted). I do know that SOME are, my pastor is one. I think Luther was another. I have no stats, certainly not down to the thousandth of one percent. I have no opinion, one way or the other - so I don't count (LOL).

Is this (Mary's sinlessness) not specifically rejected by Lutheranism and not supported at all in the Book of Concord which is the Lutheran Confessional standard?

Isnt it true that no official Lutheran Dogmatic teaching supports Mary being sinless? In fact just the opposite?

But, again, the debate is not about who believes what. It's about the dogmatic fact of Mary being conceived immaculately (and obviously this is unique).

Ok, but you brought it up...

I think Orthodox would be in agreement with Protestants here, even if, like Luther and many Lutherans, they affirm as pious opinion (to use the Lutheran term) that Our Lady is without sin.

If it's not dogma in the EO, then the EO stands with the Protestant position that it is not dogma.

Fair enough yet the EO do believe that Mary is sinless and say these type of things within the hymns & prayers of a Liturgy such as...

"This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary..."; "She is conceived ... the only immaculate one"; "Having conceived the most pure dove...


Even if its not Dogma for the EO, no Protestant would officially ever admit this in a prayer or hymn or otherwise where Orthodox do...big, big difference. Protestants would consider this kind of talk heresy and do.




pax