Universal acceptance, a lie.

[Uphill Battle]

• "Origen", although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of "Christ's" passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also "Christ" died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
• In the same manner "St. Basil" writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).
• "St. Chrysostom" accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to "Jesus" at Capharnaum (Matthew 11:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. iv).

this speaks for itself, does it not?

can anyone who believes that IC was tought and accepted by all of the Church care to answer this criticism?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Origen was excommunicated for his heretical ideas.

AND I have to go look at 88 homilies by St John Chrysostom.

So far I havent seen this, but I am only on homily 9.

The numbers you have are unclear...and so I cannot rely on them, OR they do not exist.

BRB.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Matthew 11:46 doesnt exist....

Matthew 12; 46-48 exists. So, let me keep going, because already I discovered this error.

Where did you get this from? What source gave you this critique?

Mistakes happen, but I went through almost 20 Homiles because the other numbers are also off.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Homily 21 on St John's Gospel.

For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, "Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?" ( Matt. xii. 48 ), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshipped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion. For consider what a thing it was, that when all the people high and low were standing round Him, when the multitude was intent on hearing Him, and His doctrine had begun to be set forth, she should come into the midst and take Him away from the work of exhortation, and converse with Him apart, and not even endure to come within, but draw Him outside merely to herself. This is why He said, "Who is My mother and My brethren?" Not to insult her who had borne Him, (away with the thought!) but to procure her the greatest benefit, and not to let her think meanly of Him. For if He cared for others, and used every means to implant in them a becoming opinion of Himself, much more would He do so in the case of His mother. And since it was probable that if these words had been addressed to her by her Son, she would not readily have chosen even then to be convinced, but would in all cases have claimed the superiority as being His mother, therefore He replied as He did to them who spoke to Him; otherwise He could not have led up her thoughts from His present lowliness to His future exaltation, had she expected that she should always be honored by Him as by a son, and not that He should come as her Master.

[3.] It was then from this motive that He said in this place, "Woman, what have I to do with you?" and also for another reason not less pressing. What was that? It was, that His miracles might not be suspected. The request ought to have come from those who needed, not from His mother. And why so? Because what is done at the request of one's friends, great though it be, often causes offense to the spectators; but when they make the request who have the need, the miracle is free from suspicion, the praise unmixed, the benefit great. So if some excellent physician should enter a house where there were many sick, and be spoken to by none of the patients or their relations, but be directed only by his own mother, he would be suspected and disliked by the sufferers, nor would any of the patients or their attendants deem him able to exhibit anything great or remarkable. And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, "Woman, what have I to do with you?" instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.
These then were the words, not of one speaking rudely to his mother, but belonging to a wise dispensation, which brought her into a right frame of mind, and provided that the miracles should be attended with that honor which was meet. And setting other things aside, this very appearance which these words have of having been spoken chidingly, is amply enough to show that He held her in high honor, for by His displeasure He showed that He reverenced her greatly; in what manner, we will say in the next discourse. Think of this then, and when you hear a certain woman saying, "Blessed is the womb that bare You, and the paps which You have sucked," and Him answering, "rather blessed are they that do the will of my Father" ( Luke xi. 27 ),...

LINK to continue

WELL...does NOT seem to me what you reported...NOT at all.

IN fact, this shows the DEEP honor and reverence Christ had in honoring her.

JUST as we have been saying all along!

 

[Iollain]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

[Uphill Battle]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

I knew I forgot something.

It came from a site that supports it, no less.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Apparently NOT, as I quoted from that site.

AND the above was the Homily of which you spoke.
IT doesnt agree with the post you made.

St. Chrysostom" accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to "Jesus" at Capharnaum (Matthew 11:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. iv).

 

[lionroar0]

In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.

• Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
• In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).
• St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. 4).

But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science. If we were to attempt to set forth the full doctrine of the Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which includes particularly the implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages. In the testimony of the Fathers two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22).

 

[lionroar0]

Mary as the second Eve


This celebrated comparison between Eve, while yet immaculate and incorrupt -- that is to say, not subject to original sin -- and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:

• Justin (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100),
• Irenaeus (Contra Haereses, III, xxii, 4),
• Tertullian (De carne Christi, xvii),
• Julius Firmicus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
• Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses, xii, 29),
• Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
• Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
• Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

For the whole document in context.

Peace

 

[Uphill Battle]

In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.

• Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
• In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).
• St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. 4).

But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science. If we were to attempt to set forth the full doctrine of the Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which includes particularly the implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages. In the testimony of the Fathers two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22).

I know that this is a site that supports the IC. and sinlessness of Mary. However, unless you are willing to disavow everything this person has written, the lie that "It's always been taught and believed from the very beginning" is exposed.

 

[WarriorAngel]

St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. 4).

St. Chrysostom" accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to "Jesus" at Capharnaum (Matthew 11:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. iv).

They are different.....
SO it was not my imagination after all...

However, I STILL do not see St. Chrysostom inferring that.

 

[lionroar0]

Found it.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/immacu.htm

Peace

 

[Uphill Battle]

Origen was excommunicated for his heretical ideas.


BRB.

T[SIZE=-1]HE[/SIZE] A[SIZE=-1]NATHEMAS[/SIZE] A[SIZE=-1]GAINST[/SIZE] O[SIZE=-1]RIGEN[/SIZE](1)
The Fifth Ecumenical Council
The Second Council of Constantinople
[SIZE=-1]A.D.[/SIZE] 553
I
If anyone assert the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.
II
If anyone shall say that the creation of all reasonable things includes only intelligences without bodies and altogether immaterial, having neither number or name, so that there is unity between them all by identity of substance, force and energy, and by their union with and knowledge of God, the Word; but that no longer desiring the sight of God, they gave themselves over to worse things, each one following his own inclinations, and that they have taken bodies more or less subtile, and have received names, for among the heavenly Powers there is a difference of names as there is also a difference of bodies; and thence some became and are called Cherubims, others Seraphims, and Principalities, and Powers, and Dominations, and Thrones, and Angels, and as many other heavenly orders as there may be: let him be anathema.
III
If anyone shall say that the sun, the moon, and the stars are also reasonable things, and that they have only become what they are because they turned towards evil: let him be anathema.
IV
If anyone shall say that the reasonable creatures in whom the divine love had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies such as ours, and have been called men, while those who have attained the lowest degree of wickedness have shared cold and obscure bodies and are become and called demons and evil spirits: let him be anathema.
V
If anyone shall say that a psychic condition has come from an angelic or archangelic state, and moreover that a demoniac and a human condition has come from a psychic condition, and that from a human state they may become again angels and demons, and that each order of heavenly virtues is either all from those below or from those above and below: let him be anathema.
VI
If anyone shall say that there is a twofold race of demons, of which the one includes the souls of men and the other the superior spirits who fell to this, and that of all the number of reasonable beings there is but one which has remained unshaken in the love and contemplation of God, and that that spirit is become Christ and the king of all reasonable beings, and that he has created all the bodies which exist in heaven, on earth, and between heaven and earth; and that the world which has in itself elements more ancient than itself, and which exist by themselves, viz: dryness, damp, heat and cold, and the image to which it was formed, was so formed, and that the most holy and consubstantial Trinity did not create the world, but that it was created by the working intelligence which is more ancient than the world, and which communicates to it its being: let him be anathema.
VII
If anyone shall say that Christ, of whom it is said that he appeared in the form of God, and that he was united before all time with God the Word, and humbled himself in those last days even to humanity, had (according to their expression) pity upon the divers falls which had appeared in the spirits united in the same unity (of which he himself is part), and that to restore them he passed through divers classes, had different bodies and different names, became all to all, an Angel among Angels, a Power among Powers, had clothed himself in the different classes of reasonable beings with a form corresponding to that class, and finally has taken flesh and blood like ours and is become man for man; [if anyone says all this] and does not profess that God the Word humbled himself and became man: let him be anathema.
VIII
If anyone shall not acknowledge that God the Word, of the same substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and who was made flesh and became man, one of the Trinity, is Christ in every sense of the word, but [shall affirm] that he is so only in an inaccurate manner, and because of the abasement, as they call it, of the intelligence; if anyone shall affirm that this intelligence united to God the Word, is the Christ in the true sense of the word, while the Logos is only called Christ because of this union with the intelligence, and e converso that the intelligence is only called God because of the Logos: let him be anathema.
IX
If anyone shall say that it was not the Divine Logos made man by taking an animated body with a rational spirit (anima rationalis) and [SIZE=-1]VOEPA[/SIZE], that he descended into hell and ascended into heaven, but shall pretend that it is the [SIZE=-1]NOUS[/SIZE] which has done this, that [SIZE=-1]NOUS[/SIZE] of which they say (in an impious fashion) he is Christ, properly called, and that he is become so by knowledge of the Monad: let him be anathema.
X
If anyone shall say that after the resurrection the body of the Lord was ethereal, having the form of a sphere, and that such shall be the bodies of all after the resurrection; and that after the Lord himself shall have rejected his true body and after the others who rise shall have rejected theirs, the nature of their bodies shall be annihilated: let him be anathema.
XI
If anyone shall say that the future judgment signifies the destruction of the body and that the end of the story will be an immaterial [false appearance?] and that thereafter there will no longer be any matter, but only spirit: let him be anathema.
XII
If anyone shall say that the heavenly Powers and all men and the Devil and evil spirits are united with the Word of God in all respects, as the [SIZE=-1]NOUS[/SIZE] which is by them called Christ and which is in the form of God, and which humbled itself as they say; and [if anyone shall say] that the kingdom of Christ shall have an end: let him be anathema.
XIII
If anyone shall say that Christ [i.e., the [SIZE=-1]NOUS[/SIZE]] is in no wise different from other reasonable beings, neither substantially nor by wisdom nor by his power and might over all things but that all will be placed at the right hand of God, as well as he that is called by them Christ [the [SIZE=-1]NOUS[/SIZE]], as also they were in the feigned pre-existence of all things: let him be anathema.
XIV
If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity ... of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the feigned pre-existence; let him be anathema.
XVIf anyone shall say that the life of the spirits shall be like to the life which was in the beginning while as yet the spirits had not come down or fallen, so that the end and the beginning shall be alike, and that the end shall be the true measure of the beginning; let him be anathema.

http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/TheAnathemasAgainstOrigenSeries/Part1of5.html


riddle me this.....


1) Anathemas not pronounced until AD 553. Why so long, if such a horrible heretic?

2) none of the Anathemas have anything to do with rejection of sinlessness of Mary. If that is a "always believed" truth, and an article of faith at that, why no Anathema against this?

3) RCC uses Origen whenever it benefits them to do so, but then say "but he was a heretic" when it does not?
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm

Origen​

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).
​

Very, very dubious.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I can hear the crickets.

 

[Uphill Battle]

chirp chirp.

 

[Uphill Battle]

no takers.

Wish I could say I was suprised!

 

[lionroar0]

no takers.

Wish I could say I was suprised!

 

[Uphill Battle]

funny! and useless.

 

[Uphill Battle]

sigh....

 

[LivingWordUnity]

sigh....

There is no point in trying to get you to see why we Catholics believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception if you reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

So what you should be focusing on is why we Catholics believe that the Catholic Church, and in particular, the Pope, has authority to tell us what doctrines we should believe and what is heresy.

To do this, a good place to start are the Catholic teaching of delegation of authority from Jesus to the apostles, the Primacy of Peter, and apostolic succession.

Here is a good start:
http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp