The Immaculate Conception contradicts the gospel (2)

[Mama Kidogo]

The Holy See was petitioned by a number of Bishops across the world to clearly define the dogma...Yes, it a belief that was held but not formally defined...

Ineffabilis Deus

Thanks for the link. It seems they just thought it should be. They really didn't give a reason for changing it to dogma except that some bishops wanted it to be. I suspect said bishops were hearing of issues but that's speculation.

Is it written (in the CCC) somewhat vague on purpose? Like giving it some latitude for those that differ slightly on it.(meaning by degrees rather than substance)Vague isn't the right word. "Simply" fits it better.

I hope you know I'm trying to be open and not disrespectful about this. While there are some points in it that prevent me from accepting it, as a teaching, I don't have great issues with it. But enough so I can't own it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

See post #246. The conversation is swirling with scripture of all falling short, being conceived in sin.

BTW, my take on birthed with the "inclination to sin" or however one phrases it is we are all born spiritually dead. We must be born again from above. Even Mary. Christ not, whose Father is God.

Which came first, the Church or Scripture?

BTW, we don't say that Mary was born without the inclination to sin. She's human, after all. What we are saying is that God made her perfect. She had nothing to do with it...

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Holy See was petitioned by a number of Bishops across the world to clearly define the dogma...Yes, it a belief that was held but not formally defined...

Ineffabilis Deus

It looks as if it was studied for more than 50 years, and determined that it was a revealed dogma. Don't know more than that Mama. It's interesting, though, that when Mary appeared to Bernadette Soubirous, she called herself the Immaculate Conception. Bernadette, a barely literate girl, was asked what the lady, as she called her, said to her, and she replied "She said "I am the immaculate conception.", something she would have no idea about, since the dogma had just recently been promulgated.

 

[Albion]

Not necessarily.

To clarify my earlier comment...what I meant was that if there is no Scriptural basis for any of these doctrines, that would be sufficient for them to be rejected AS DOCTRINES. That a person might wonder about them or even think that there's a good possibility they might be true would be something else.

But at least without specific Biblical support, there really ought to be something that falls in the line of historical evidence that the belief actually had at some point been passed on by the apostles-those who had first hand knowledge of who Jesus was, in other words.

And that's a good point. I would never agree to a doctrine that has arisen only because there's some legend attributed to the Apostles, but even for those folks who base their beliefs on traditions instead of Scripture, there ought to at least be some evidence that they were taught by the Apostles as claimed. In most cases, there is none. The Apostolic connection is simply stipulated.

 

[George95]

MOD HAT ON

This has been moved to Mariology from General Theology.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[bbbbbbb]

I see this thread has been committed to the outer darkness away from the light of General Theology. Such is the way of popular threads. I had wondered when this might happen.

 

[James Is Back]

Well this is certainly a very interesting thread even though I'm not Catholic it's always interesting to see their viewpoints on what they believe and IC is certainly one subject that has intrigued me.

 

[Albion]

I see this thread has been committed to the outer darkness away from the light of General Theology. Such is the way of popular threads. I had wondered when this might happen.

It will, however, continue to show up on the list of subscribed threads for almost everyone who has posted to it.

 

[By Faith Alone]

Which came first, the Church or Scripture?

BTW, we don't say that Mary was born without the inclination to sin. She's human, after all. What we are saying is that God made her perfect. She had nothing to do with it...

 

[Albion]

I know how you feel.



Apparently, this--

BTW, we don't say that Mary was born without the inclination to sin. She's human, after all. What we are saying is that God made her perfect. She had nothing to do with it...

is supposed to make everything all right and be so reasonable that there can't be any remaining disagreement.

indeed.

 

[By Faith Alone]

I know how you feel.
Apparently, this--
is supposed to make everything all right and be so reasonable that there can't be any remaining disagreement.
indeed.

I get downright disgusted, humiliated and embarrassed when a "Christian" has such a disregard for Scriptures as to base theology on assumption.

Oooopps. The "assumption of Mary". Sheesh.

 

[Zeek]

Three things trouble me about the notion/doctrine of IC. (so far)

Originally Posted by Zeek

1. It took until 1854 and Pope Pius IX to augment it as belief.
​

False assertion. The doctrine was raised to the level of Dogma in the Catholic Church. It has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church since the early centuries.

Whoa bro...before dismissing my concern so easily your answer is somewhat misleading.

It is stated on the Catholic site https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya2.htm

...The result was that about a century and a half before the definition of 1854, the whole Church believed the Immaculate Conception. Finally, in Ineffabilis Deus, in 1854, Pius IX defined this doctrine and added that Mary was conceived immaculate by anticipation of the merits of Christ. This is not strange, for to the eye of God, all time is present.

My wording might leave a little to be desired, but it roughly translated the same..also your reply 'early centuries etc' gives the impression that it was fully embraced at an early stage, whereas the truth is that there was contention about it in varying degrees for at least 1500 years and some of that initiating with various Church Fathers.

Originally Posted by Zeek

2. I cannot understand why the Bible is at pains to point out the lineage of Jesus, including a prostitute, murderer and adulterer, but suddenly others find it necessary to attribute a special grace (whatever that is) to Mary.
​

Don't see how both correlate. The Archangel Gabriel, elevated Mary, not human beings.

Gabriel greeted Mary in a way that puzzled her as he called her 'favoured' or 'endowed with the grace of G-d', sure Gabriel's greeting singles Mary out, and her favour with G-d by being the woman through whom Jesus is conceived is astonishing...but it is by the grace of G-d in the 'choosing' and that is as far as it goes.

To say Gabriel 'elevated' her presumes things that I cannot see, and if it was such an issue would most definately have been spoken of by the Apostles and Paul and embraced as a doctrine right from the start.

Originally Posted by Zeek

3. What are the visible results of elevating Mary? In answer I would say an
emphasis on aspects of deity that no human can possess, and leading people
down a path that should not be trodden.
​

strawman, since no Church that I know of advocates the Adoration of Mary as a goddess.

Easy to call out the all too familiar accusation on these Boards of 'Strawman'...but your answer implies you wholly fail to see the implications of what I touched upon.

Without pounding it home...Isaiah chapters 40 to 48 express many of the invisible and revealed attributes of G-d that only YHWH possesses, and shows that no living being comes close to being like Him...and yet as I look at the doctrines/dogmas/beliefs etc surrounding Mary, and read some of the things said about her and the powers attributed to her, I clearly see parallels with deity...

Happy to list and show songs sung to Mary, praises heaped upon Mary, petitions delivered to Mary and worship that goes beyond any verneration or supplication given to Mary because people believe she has in herself divine power and attributes.

 

[Standing Up]

So at least you express an understanding that there is an exception to the rule.

There is no exception to the rule that all men fall short. Christ is man/God. Surely you understand this distinction?!

 

[Standing Up]

It looks as if it was studied for more than 50 years, and determined that it was a revealed dogma. Don't know more than that Mama. It's interesting, though, that when Mary appeared to Bernadette Soubirous, she called herself the Immaculate Conception. Bernadette, a barely literate girl, was asked what the lady, as she called her, said to her, and she replied "She said "I am the immaculate conception.", something she would have no idea about, since the dogma had just recently been promulgated.

She, whoever that is, also calls herself lady of all nations.

The Lady of All Nations - Family of Mary

 

[Standing Up]

I see this thread has been committed to the outer darkness away from the light of General Theology. Such is the way of popular threads. I had wondered when this might happen.

Yep.

 

[SolomonVII]

To clarify my earlier comment...what I meant was that if there is no Scriptural basis for any of these doctrines, that would be sufficient for them to be rejected AS DOCTRINES. That a person might wonder about them or even think that there's a good possibility they might be true would be something else.



And that's a good point. I would never agree to a doctrine that has arisen only because there's some legend attributed to the Apostles, but even for those folks who base their beliefs on traditions instead of Scripture, there ought to at least be some evidence that they were taught by the Apostles as claimed. In most cases, there is none. The Apostolic connection is simply stipulated.

After two thousand years, Scripture has become the necessary anchor to assure us that any doctrine based in Scripture is doctrine that is well grounded in verifiable historic documents that do come from the apostolic age. That is how sola scriptura has come to be an acceptable practice, even if the apostles were not in a position to practice it. They were too busy creating and living the history that became the New Testament to be able to refer to it. Scripture is what they left for future generations to ground our faith in.

E-V doctrine has some very early evidence to having existed from a period very close to the one in which the 12 apostles lived.
That is not the case for I-C. There is a gap of centuries into the trail leading up to the doctrine.

To be able to develop actual doctrine that way opens Christianity up to what has happened with Mormonism or Islam, where a man with enough position and power is able to dictate his truth to us.

I have a problem with that.

 

[James Is Back]

Wow 30 pages already. I wonder how many more pages will be added before we realize that those who believe in IC isn't going to convince those that don't and vice versa.

Still IC is a very interesting doctrine despite me not being Catholic.

 

[Defensor Christi]

Of course there is "historical proof" since RC defined IC with support to the 4th century. The question is whether it is apostolic proof? Does IC source to apostles? The answer, so far, is clearly no.

Keep in mind "sourcing to apostles" was a tool the very early church used to determine a belief's veracity. The church rejected Marcion's teachings because they came after the apostles. Likewise Pope Soandso's teachings are rejected because they came after the apostles.

I know St. Luke was not an apostle...

"And the angel came in unto her, and said, hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." - Luke 1:28


It is the term "full of grace" that is emphasized by the Church when dealing with Mary's Immaculate Conception. The title "full of grace" comes from the Greek word kecharitomene, which describes a "perfection" and "abundance" of grace. In other words, Mary was proclaimed by the angel to be with a perfection of grace, which was a very powerful statement. How can Mary be completely and perfectly with God's grace, yet still have sin left in her? Christians eventually came to recognize that it was extremely possible for Mary to be without sin, especially if she was completely filled with God's grace. Luke 1:28 happens to be the only place in the Bible where anyone is addressed with the important title of "full of grace."

St. Gabriel actually communicated a new name or title to her. In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or "Hail, full of grace." Generally speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would be found in the immediate context. "Hail, king of the Jews" in John 19:3 and "Claudias Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greeting" (Acts 23:26) are two biblical examples of this. The fact that the angel replaces Mary’s name in the greeting with "full of grace" was anything but common. This would be analogous to me speaking to a tech guy, "Hello, he who fixes computers." In Hebrew culture, names and name changes tell us something permanent about the character and calling of the one named. Just recall the name changes of Abram to Abraham (from "father" to "father of the multitudes") in Genesis 17:5, Saray to Sarah ("my princess" to "princess"), in Genesis 17:15 and Jacob to Israel ("supplanter" to "he who prevails with God") in Genesis 32:28.

Hail Mary, Conceived Without Sin | Catholic Answers

Why Catholics Believe in the Immaculate Conception

 

[Defensor Christi]

Is it written (in the CCC) somewhat vague on purpose? Like giving it some latitude for those that differ slightly on it.(meaning by degrees rather than substance)Vague isn't the right word. "Simply" fits it better.

I hope you know I'm trying to be open and not disrespectful about this. While there are some points in it that prevent me from accepting it, as a teaching, I don't have great issues with it. But enough so I can't own it.

Could you be specific on the passage in the CCC you are talking about?

I know you are not being disrespectful...I always respect and admire your posts/questions.

 

[Defensor Christi]

I get downright disgusted, humiliated and embarrassed when a "Christian" has such a disregard for Scriptures as to base theology on assumption.

Oooopps. The "assumption of Mary". Sheesh.

Is there a reason you put Christian in quotation marks? Makes me think you dont "really" believe us "lost" Catholics are "Christian"...