The Immaculate Conception contradicts the gospel (2)

[Defensor Christi]

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.

When and by whom was Scripture cannonized...hmmmm, perhaps a discussion for a different thread. I think some folks either ignore or are unaware of the history of the cannon of books we call the Bible...

 

[Defensor Christi]

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.

No one is ever convinced of anything in GT...such is the way of the board...

 

[Erose]

Not necessarily.
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.

Yeah I agree. I mean we don't get sola Scriptura until what the 15-1600s?

 

[Rick Otto]

When and by whom was Scripture cannonized...hmmmm, perhaps a discussion for a different thread. I think some folks either ignore or are unaware of the history of the cannon of books we call the Bible...

Good morning, Mr. D.
Coffee is awesome this morning.

Wasn't it cannonized by orthodox Catholics, instead of by the Orthodox or the Catholics?

I suppose my point is that neither the Orthox or the Catholics are the same Church they were before 1054.

 

[Erose]

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

Do you not understand that Jesus was both fully God and fully man? Jesus is just a human as you and I. Nothing lacked in Him when it came to His humanity. Are you become a Docetist on me?

 

[Rick Otto]

Yeah I agree. I mean we don't get sola Scriptura until what the 15-1600s?

Why should that matter when we didn't get IC until the 1850s?

What's good for the goose...

 

[Rick Otto]

No one is ever convinced of anything in GT...such is the way of the board...

We learn a lot about how and why congregants perceive their own doctrines.

 

[prodromos]

I suppose my point is that neither the Orthox or the Catholics are the same Church they were before 1054.

How do you believe the Orthodox Church has changed from prior to 1054? What do you believe is different in the faith, worship, structure and priesthood of the Church prior to 1054 and the Orthodox Church today?

 

[Defensor Christi]

Good morning, Mr. D.
Coffee is awesome this morning.

Wasn't it cannonized by orthodox Catholics, instead of by the Orthodox or the Catholics?

I suppose my point is that neither the Orthox or the Catholics are the same Church they were before 1054.

Mr. O,

Always a pleasure!! Glad the coffee is delicious!

Fair point, yes we were one Church at the time Scripture was cannonized...although it would also be fair to say the neither the EO or RC Church's claim sola scriptura (as the poster the comment was directed toward stated) as a "rule of thumb"...regardless of our current theological positions cocerning the IC....

Not to mention the poster clearly displayed little knowledge of the developement of doctrine/dogma within the Catholic Church (comparing the Pope to Joseph Smith/Muhommad is a sure fire way to get my "dander" up...)

I do hope you have a wonderful day kind sir...

 

[Defensor Christi]

We learn a lot about how and why congregants perceive their own doctrines.

I would rebut that learning is different from "being convinced" (a.k.a changing your beliefs)...

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Make that 130 pages and counting. This thread flew through 1,000 posts and has been on its second thousand for some time now.

 

[Erose]

Why should that matter when we didn't get IC until the 1850s?

What's good for the goose...

It wasn't defined as Dogma until the 1850s. It was doctrine in the Catholic Church well before the existence of any Protestant denomination.

So what do we have here then? We have people following innovations that didn't come around until the 15-1600 attacking the history of a doctrine that predates them by over a millennia. Something is quite wrong with that picture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

It seemed to me that the passage I quoted from the CCC was quite specific and not intentionally vague as to allow "wiggle room" as Mama Kidogo has suggested. Here it is again for further discussion -

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

 

[Defensor Christi]

It seemed to me that the passage I quoted from the CCC was quite specific and not intentionally vague as to allow "wiggle room" as Mama Kidogo has suggested. Here it is again for further discussion -

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

Hmmmm...yes, maybe she could clarify. Thanks!

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

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...

True dat

 

[SolomonVII]

When and by whom was Scripture cannonized...hmmmm, perhaps a discussion for a different thread. I think some folks either ignore or are unaware of the history of the cannon of books we call the Bible...

It was never formally canonized by any church until the Reformation.

But there was a broad consensus, with variations, on which books made up Scripture very early on in Christianity as a whole.
It wasn't a magical process at all.

 

[SolomonVII]

Yeah I agree. I mean we don't get sola Scriptura until what the 15-1600s?

If you really did agree, then you would note that there is no historical support for IC being something that had been taught by the apostles, and adjust your belief accordingly.
Sola Scriptura came about to stop the abuses of churchmen using the prestige and power of their office to pull doctrine out of their imaginations, rather than remaining true to what the apostles taught. Scripture is the most verifiable and verified source of apostolic teaching that exists, after all.

The words have not changed, neither been added to, nor subtracted from for 1800 years.

 

[Erose]

It was never formally canonized by any church until the Reformation.

This isn't a true statement. The Catholic Bible was (I'm not sure this would be an appropriate term for the matter) canonized in the late 4th early 5th century. As a proof in point at the Council of Florence (1442 session X1); one of the requirements for reunification the Coptic Christians had to accept the Catholic canon. There is a list also provided:

Eccumenical Council of Florence and Council of Basel

But that being said, there is ample evidence that the Catholic Bible was fully accepted as the full list of inspired books from the 5th century. What the council of Trent did, was dogmatize the list, and as such closed the Biblical canon.

Now you may point out that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have differing canons than the Catholic Church which is true. But it needs to be pointed out that the Orthodox Churches accept the full canon that the Catholic Church has accepted as its canon. The Orthodox Churches have added to that list and not taken away from it. (Some Oriental Churches being the exception, which seems to be due to the fact that the Oriental Schism occurred at the Council of Chalcedon, which was during the establishing an official biblical canon.) I would imagine that the argument offered by the Eastern Orthodox Christians on why they have larger canons than the Catholic one was that the canon list wasn't closed in the early centuries, and as such this resulted in the addition of additional writings as Scripture.

Here is a link that one can find confusing in a sense, since in Orthodoxy there seems to view that not all writings in Scripture have the same level of canonicity. But you can check that out yourself:

The Canon of the Holy Bible for Orthodox Christians

Classification of the books of the Holy Bible

But in the Latin Church the current canon was established through a series of synods, starting with the one in Rome under pope St. Damasus I; Hippo under St. Augustine; and Carthage. The canon list in the West hasn't changed since the synod of Rome.

But there was a broad consensus, with variations, on which books made up Scripture very early on in Christianity as a whole.
It wasn't a magical process at all.

No it wasn't a magical process, but this process didn't last until the Protestant Reformation. It ended much sooner. I would say nearly a 1000 years sooner in the West.

 

[Erose]

If you really did agree, then you would note that there is no historical support for IC being something that had been taught by the apostles, and adjust your belief accordingly.

Why should I? I see in the passages of Luke and in Revelations this fact of her Immaculateness being true. But I see zero evidence to support Sola Scriptura in Scripture. Zero. So until you give up this modern innovation, which IC predates well over a 1000 years, then you are just being hypocritical.

Sola Scriptura came about to stop the abuses of churchmen using the prestige and power of their office to pull doctrine out of their imaginations, rather than remaining true to what the apostles taught. Scripture is the most verifiable and verified source of apostolic teaching that exists, after all.

So you are admitting that Sola Scriptura is a man-made construct. Careful you are going to get lynched by the Protestant mob.

The words have not changed, neither been added to, nor subtracted from for 1800 years.

I don't think a lot of scholars would agree with this comment.

 

[Standing Up]

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.-snip-

Which manuscript are you using?

Favor, Favored:
akin to A, to endow with charis, primarily signified "to make graceful or gracious," and came to denote, in Hellenistic Greek, "to cause to find favor," Luk 1:28, "highly favored" (marg., "endued with grace"); in Eph 1:6, it is translated "made... accepted," AV, "freely bestowed," RV (lit., "graced"); it does not here mean to endue with grace. Grace implies more than favor; grace is a free gift, favor may be deserved or gained.

There is however that makes your point about Christ, not Mary:

John 1:4 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

One degree off at the beginning has led "full of grace" from Christ to Mary today.