Peanut Gallery: The Immaculate conception of Mary!

[Athanasias]

You guys are missing the whole point of the debate. I am NOT debating this topic to prove it is dogma. Nowhere in the debate do I mention that. That would be like trying to prove the dogma of the Trinity to a muslim. I am debating this topic to show protestants(most of whom do not believe in the Immaculate conception) that Catholics have good biblical, and historical reasons from tradition and biblical typology to at least beleive in it. Thats it. Thats all I am trying to do. If I can do at least that then I feel God has used me for his work and his word. So stop arguing on what I am trying to prove here as I am not trying to prove what you think.

I have just posted a new response to Ahiggs counter arguments in my second post. It has not appeared on the board yet but keep watching eventually a Mod will approve it and you can read it.

In Jesus the King through Mary the queen Mother,
Athanasias

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You guys are missing the whole point of the debate. I am NOT debating this topic to prove it is dogma. Nowhere in the debate do I mention that. That would be like trying to prove the dogma of the Trinity to a muslim. I am debating this topic to show protestants(most of whom do not believe in the Immaculate conception) that Catholics have good biblical, and historical reasons from tradition and biblical typology to at least beleive in it. Thats it. Thats all I am trying to do.

I'm confused. How does that substantiate the DOGMA of The Immaculate Conception????

OF course Catholics have a valid HISTORIC reason for it because it's found in history. But then so is Arianism, Gnosticism and a whole lot of other beliefs, I'm SURE you'd agree THAT doesn't have any relation to it being correct, much less dogma. Mormons could show that all their doctrines are found in history, too (albeit shorter history).

Earlier, I thought it was mention that there was going to be several quotes from ECF who knew Mary or one of the 13 Apostles quoted as specificly teaching this (maybe I'm getting my Marian discussion threads confused). I was really looking forward to that. You didn't state that above here that you intend to show that.

The biblical should be interesting, although you already stated in your first post that it's not biblical, so I'm a tad confused there. I think you expressly stated that it's only IMPLIED in Scripture, so I think you already surrendered that point to the Protestant. Unless you intend to change that position.

I have just posted a new response to Ahiggs counter arguments in my second post. It has not appeared on the board yet but keep watching eventually a Mod will approve it and you can read it.

I look forward to reading it....




Blessings!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Athanasias]

I'm confused. How does that substantiate the DOGMA of The Immaculate Conception????

OF course Catholics have a valid HISTORIC reason for it because it's found in history. But then so is Arianism, Gnosticism and a whole lot of other beliefs, I'm SURE you'd agree THAT doesn't have any relation to it being correct, much less dogma. Mormons could show that all their doctrines are found in history, too (albeit shorter history).

Earlier, I thought it was mention that there was going to be several quotes from ECF who knew Mary or one of the 13 Apostles quoted as specificly teaching this (maybe I'm getting my Marian discussion threads confused). I was really looking forward to that. You didn't state that above here that you intend to show that.

The biblical should be interesting, although you already stated in your first post that it's not biblical, so I'm a tad confused there. I think you expressly stated that it's only IMPLIED in Scripture, so I think you already surrendered that point to the Protestant. Unless you intend to change that position.







I look forward to reading it....




Blessings!


Pax


- Josiah




.

I hate to sound like a broken record here But once AGAIN, I am NOT trying to show the IC is a Dogma. I am NOT debating whether not it is a dogma. I never intended to debate that. Like I said that would be as pointless as trying to show a muslim that the Trinity is a Dogma. What I am doing is trying to show that the Immaculate conception is logical for Christians to beleive in when using scripture(biblical typology) and tradition. thats it! thats all!

If you do not beleive me please read my formal debate proposal.

Here it is:

"I am interested in a formal debate on the dogma of the Immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Mary.

The debate can be short like 3-4 rounds

At least allowing 5000 words maximun per round per person per post.

Length up to one week(7 days) to respond.

This is a must. The person whom I will debate with must not be anti-Catholic. In other words I am only looking for a real (biblical/logical/historical) dialog with a good hearted Christian protestant evangelical who is open to friendly debate and who does not think Catholics are going to hell or Catholic worship Mary(We don't). I am looking for someone who may be protestant but also sees the Catholic church as a good Christian church but may dissagree with them over this issue.

Debating anti-Catholics do no good because they never listen and it makes me not want to listen to their side hence the Holy Spirit can not work in both of our hearts to hear each other prayerfully and proclaim Christ truth. I want this discussion to bring light and not heat to the understanding theologically and biblically why Catholics believe Mary's Sinlessness.

I hope that is clear".

Of so I never intended this to be a debate about its dogmatic status. I intended this to be a debate about why Catholics theologically and biblically believe in Mary's sinlessness. Period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So stop putting words in my mouth making this debate out to be something that it is not about. That is just dishonest of you!!!



Once again I never said that it was not biblical. I showed and said that it was biblical in my first post through biblical typology. So I have to wander what your reading because it certainly isn't my post. You seem to be putting words in my mouth that I never said. That is dishonest and intolerable for a devout Christian to be doing that! If you keep doing this I will report you to the mods and try to have you removed for causing trouble in this forum! Good Catholics and Protestants who want to think and talk should use this forum not someone who is just out to cause trouble and make straw man arguments like you have been doing. Is that clear???

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Okay. I'm just confused (and that's okay - it's not the first time) how there can be a debate about a DOGMA that has nothing to do with DOGMA, and about the Immaculate Conception of Mary that doesn't address the issue of whether it's true or not.

The debate forum is not intended for discussions or clarifications or even mutual understanding - it's about proving a position to be correct, with the goal of convincing others of it's correctness. A debate has nothing to do with why someone believes something, that's a presentation, an explanation - and it doesn't suggest a rebuttle from another (debate), it rather suggests questions from all.

If you have no intention of substantiating the DOGMA as dogma, and the teaching of the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION of Mary but just presenting why some believe it, then I'm disappointed, LOL. I already know why it's believed.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Once again I never said that it was not biblical.That is dishonest and intolerable for a devout Christian to be doing that! If you keep doing this I will report you to the mods and try to have you removed for causing trouble in this forum! Good Catholics and Protestants who want to think and talk should use this forum not someone who is just out to cause trouble and make straw man arguments like you have been doing. Is that clear???[/

Sorry. I remembered you explicity stating that it is only IMPLIED in Scripture. Obviously, I'm remembering incorrectly. Forgive me.

 

[Athanasias]

Okay. I'm just confused (and that's okay - it's not the first time) how there can be a debate about a DOGMA that has nothing to do with DOGMA, and about the Immaculate Conception of Mary that doesn't address the issue of whether it's true or not.

The debate forum is not intended for discussions or clarifications or even mutual understanding - it's about proving a position to be correct, with the goal of convincing others of it's correctness. A debate has nothing to do with why someone believes something, that's a presentation, an explanation - and it doesn't suggest a rebuttle from another (debate), it rather suggests questions from all.

If you have no intention of substantiating the DOGMA as dogma, and the teaching of the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION of Mary but just presenting why some believe it, then I'm disappointed, LOL. I already know why it's believed.

Ok maybe I can help you understand better. You can debate a dogma without debating its dogmatic status. For example You can debate the concept of the Trinity without debating why it is raised to a dogmatic level. Try to prove the Dogmatic status of the Trinity to a Muslim and see where you get. Milk before meat must be given. Think of it like this. Before someone can understand algebra they must understand basic math. Algebra(Dogmatic status) Basic Math(why algebra works) can be debated. See the connection I am getting at. We can debate whether it is reasonable for Mary to be sinless or not and never touch on why it was raised to Dogmatic status. The meat of the doctrine and its basics can be debated and shown without ever going into the finer points. Finer points can be debated after one has admitted they beleive in the doctrine. I never intended to debate its dogmatic status. Before I can even do that I would have to debate Authority and the Papacy in addition to the Immaculate Conception(again basic math that all eventually leads into the dogmatic understanding).

I hope that helps!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thus far, Athanasius, I have not read anything here that I did not know already. I know that there is not a scintilla of direct biblical support for this belief and those who claim biblical support, such as yourself, find it very indirectly and implicitly. I know that Tradition is used to support this belief. Perhaps you might be able to show me a sound reason why I, as a Protestant, should have any opinion on the matter, much less one which agrees with yours.

 

[Athanasias]

Thus far, Athanasius, I have not read anything here that I did not know already. I know that there is not a scintilla of direct biblical support for this belief and those who claim biblical support, such as yourself, find it very indirectly and implicitly. I know that Tradition is used to support this belief. Perhaps you might be able to show me a sound reason why I, as a Protestant, should have any opinion on the matter, much less one which agrees with yours.

I am sorry BBBBBBB you haven't learned anything new. Perhaps you should have contacted me before Ahiggs did if you wanted to debate this with me. Just sit back relax and enjoy the debate. That is unless you already know it all already!

God bless you always!

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasais

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ok maybe I can help you understand better. You can debate a dogma without debating its dogmatic status. For example You can debate the concept of the Trinity without debating why it is raised to a dogmatic level.

I suppose....

Our Mormon friends believe that Jesus preached to the Native Americans and founded His Church here (they insist it is IMPLIED in the Scriptures - although not explicitely). I suppose you are correct that we could discuss that on three levels - whether Mormons indeed believe that, whether it's possible and does not exactly contradict Scripture or whether it's true. I'm not sure which level now you intend this "debate" to be. Normally a debate discusses the issue, which here is the DOGMA of the IMMACULATE Conception of the one - Mary.

We can debate whether it is reasonable for Mary to be sinless or not and never touch on why it was raised to Dogmatic status.

I think THAT'S the point I'm not understanding...

I don't understand why you think you are debating at all. Anything.
What you seem to want to do is to give a presentation about why Catholics believe this (evidently, evading the entire issue of dogma - thus placing it equal to why a lot of Catholics believe Obama would make the better president and that aliens are visiting our nation and abducting our citizens - it's simply the fact that many believe it that is your point).

So, you plan to tell why it is believed (on some or any level). I think we already know that. So, I wonder, what do you expect the Protestant to say and do? Just ask you questions that you will answer? How is that a debate? And how will we determine who has won this debate? By your objective, if people understand why you personally, on SOME level, think this is true - then I guess you've "won" and the Protestant has "lost." But I rather strongly suspect that he knew why you beleive this even before this debate began so how have you "won?" And how can he "loose" the debate? Why NOT understanding why you personally believe this on some entirely unknown level?

I gotta admit, I'm pretty confused as to WHAT is going on here? Why is this a DEBATE rather than you just presenting why you believe this? What do you expect your opponent to do? How do you expect your opponent can win? How can you win?

The meat of the doctrine and its basics can be debated and shown without ever going into the finer points.

There is nothing else than this: MARY (that one singular person) was CONCEIVED IMMACULATELY. That's it. That's all. And while many of us consider it a possibility, the issue is singular: whether it is dogma.










.

 

[simonthezealot]

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasais

Athanasius my friend I usually don't confront peoples signatures but I am greatly troubled by this, there is but one mediator between God and man -the Lord Jesus Christ.

I find this promoting a false teaching which circument the glory due God alone and I'd urge you NOT to promote this at a Christ centered forum.
In Christ ALONE,
Simon

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Since the Orthodox belief has been brought into the discussion of this thread, I thought it should be clarified, though I am by far not the best person to do so.

The Orthodox may not have officially declared the IC dogma as heresy, but that would be because the Orthodox Church is not in the business of declaring things heresies that haven't come up within the Orthodox Church. IOW, what the Catholics declare as dogma is not the Orthodox Church's "business". There are a lot of beliefs in the Christian world today that Orthodox would consider as heresy, but there is no official declaration of those things unless they came up in the Councils.

As mentioned, Orthodox feel the IC is completely unnecessary in the first place, since we have a different understanding of Original Sin. But we also don't believe that God did anything "special" to the Theotokos that set her apart from birth from all other human beings. She is our human role model specfically because she is no different (in potential) than every other human being ever born. The dogma of the IC, however, sets her apart with a "special" grace at birth that the rest of us weren't given.

I hope this is clear, and I also hope that my Orthodox brethren/sistren will come and correct any errors in what I have posted.

Mary

 

[Kristos]

That's correct Mary.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And is what several Orthodox have related to me...

This dogma is unique to the CC.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I suppose....

Our Mormon friends believe that Jesus preached to the Native Americans and founded His Church here (they insist it is IMPLIED in the Scriptures - although not explicitely). I suppose you are correct that we could discuss that on three levels - whether Mormons indeed believe that, whether it's possible and does not exactly contradict Scripture or whether it's true. I'm not sure which level now you intend this "debate" to be. Normally a debate discusses the issue, which here is the DOGMA of the IMMACULATE Conception of the one - Mary.






I think THAT'S the point I'm not understanding...

I don't understand why you think you are debating at all. Anything.
What you seem to want to do is to give a presentation about why Catholics believe this (evidently, evading the entire issue of dogma - thus placing it equal to why a lot of Catholics believe Obama would make the better president and that aliens are visiting our nation and abducting our citizens - it's simply the fact that many believe it that is your point).

So, you plan to tell why it is believed (on some or any level). I think we already know that. So, I wonder, what do you expect the Protestant to say and do? Just ask you questions that you will answer? How is that a debate? And how will we determine who has won this debate? By your objective, if people understand why you personally, on SOME level, think this is true - then I guess you've "won" and the Protestant has "lost." But I rather strongly suspect that he knew why you beleive this even before this debate began so how have you "won?" And how can he "loose" the debate? Why NOT understanding why you personally believe this on some entirely unknown level?

I gotta admit, I'm pretty confused as to WHAT is going on here? Why is this a DEBATE rather than you just presenting why you believe this? What do you expect your opponent to do? How do you expect your opponent can win? How can you win?






There is nothing else than this: MARY (that one singular person) was CONCEIVED IMMACULATELY. That's it. That's all. And while many of us consider it a possibility, the issue is singular: whether it is dogma.

Athanasias,


I hope you'll respond to the above post....

And I'm very curious how you regard this effort as a DEBATE? How you think it will be determined the winner? How you can debate a view you aren't interested in arguing is correct? What role you permit to your opponent?


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Trento]

Since the Orthodox belief has been brought into the discussion of this thread, I thought it should be clarified, though I am by far not the best person to do so.

The Orthodox may not have officially declared the IC dogma as heresy, but that would be because the Orthodox Church is not in the business of declaring things heresies that haven't come up within the Orthodox Church. IOW, what the Catholics declare as dogma is not the Orthodox Church's "business". There are a lot of beliefs in the Christian world today that Orthodox would consider as heresy, but there is no official declaration of those things unless they came up in the Councils.

As mentioned, Orthodox feel the IC is completely unnecessary in the first place, since we have a different understanding of Original Sin. But we also don't believe that God did anything "special" to the Theotokos that set her apart from birth from all other human beings. She is our human role model specfically because she is no different (in potential) than every other human being ever born. The dogma of the IC, however, sets her apart with a "special" grace at birth that the rest of us weren't given.

I hope this is clear, and I also hope that my Orthodox brethren/sistren will come and correct any errors in what I have posted.

Mary

In the words of Timothy Ware (known as Greek Orthodox Bishop Kallistos) in The Orthodox Church, (1993 edition, Penguin Press, pages 259-260) he states:

"The Orthodox Church calls Mary all-holy, immaculate, free from actual sin. The Orthodox Church has never made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter of the Immaculate Conception. In the past, individual Orthodox theologians have made statements that, if not definitively affirming the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception, at any rate closely approach it. But since 1854, the great majority of Orthodox reject it as necessary; as implying a false understanding of original sin; as suspecting the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam and Eve, putting her in a different class. However, if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe it, he could not be termed a heretic for doing so." ​

Bishop Kallistos is a Spaulding Lecturer of Eastern Christianity at Oxford University of England. He has not been "corrected" by his Patriarchs (presently, His Holiness Bartholomew), or the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, for his words. Other Orthodox theologians have stated that the doctrine of Immaculate Conception might be an unrevealed mystery within the Church; that is, a "theologeuma".

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In the words of Timothy Ware (known as Greek Orthodox Bishop Kallistos) in The Orthodox Church, (1993 edition, Penguin Press, pages 259-260) he states:

"the great majority of Orthodox reject it as implying a false understanding of original sin​

​

Yup. It's a UNIQUE Catholic view....


As a Lutheran, I don't DENY the unique RCC view, I just don't regard it as DOGMA.


Since the RCC does, and since it therefore insists that it is a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty, a matter taught by the Apostles and taught by the Church since 30 AD, the "burden of proof" is on the RCC for this view it alone teaches. I'm curious if our Catholic will reveal why/how the EO and OO forgot this Apostolic Infallible Preaching.

Let's see how our Catholic friend does in substantiating this UNIQUE Catholic view....




.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

[/indent]Yup. It's a UNIQUE Catholic view....

Although..."However, if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe it, he could not be termed a heretic for doing so."




As a Lutheran, I don't DENY the unique RCC view, I just don't regard it as DOGMA.


What you dont deny its true or that it is unique to the RC????

And if you believe it to be true but not absolutely essential to the Gospel (as Dogma is), does it make it any less a truth?




.

pax

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yup. It's a UNIQUE Catholic view....

"However, if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe it, he could not be termed a heretic for doing so."

Yes. It is NOT a teaching of the EO - and never has been.
However, individual persons are welcome to embrace the view as "pious opinion" (as Protestants would term this). This, however, is MILES AWAY from substantiating that it's true.

As a Lutheran, I don't DENY the unique RCC view, I just don't regard it as DOGMA.

if you believe it to be true but not absolutely essential to the Gospel (as Dogma is), does it make it any less a truth?

That's what we're all waiting to see.... If our Catholic friend substantiates the dogma as TRUE.





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[JamesThaddeusMartin]

As a Lutheran, I don't DENY the unique RCC view, I just don't regard it as DOGMA.

CJ, Im asking you, do you believe in the IC but do not consider it dogma by your above statement? Meaning you personally believe that the Blessed Mother was Immaculately conceived but would not raise it to the point of dogma?


If you do believe it (the IC), but dont consider it absolutley essential (dogma) do you then consider it to be any less true?




pax

 

[katholikos]

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....

Then he wasn't much of an apologist. An implicit reference to the Immaculate Conception is in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit.

Then when you expand out into OT Typology, there is much OT typology that points to Mary as the New Ark and to her Sinlessness