This

This CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception

So, was it or was it not church doctrine until the middle of the 1800's?

So, was it or was it not church doctrine until the middle of the 1800's?

 

1856.

Then I struggle with that. The doctrine takes 1800+ years to be determined after Christ, and Mary for that matter.. That doesn't make sense to me at all. I read the link provided and I can say that I don't interpret the scripture that way. I think there's an awful lot of inference to make the connection to Mary as the 2nd Eve. I've been going back and forth with RM about it and she's been great at trying to explain. I just can't make that leap that Mary was without sin immaculately. I don't understand the "Full of Grace" issue. I know the scripture reference well. But is there something from the original language that literally says "without sin"? If not, I can't seem to make that stretch for me.

 

Again, for you Catholics out there, I'm curious. I'm sincerely not trying to attack your core beliefs. Just trying to understand where they come from.

edit

Then I struggle with that. The doctrine takes 1800+ years to be determined after Christ, and Mary for that matter.. That doesn't make sense to me at all. I read the link provided and I can say that I don't interpret the scripture that way. I think there's an awful lot of inference to make the connection to Mary as the 2nd Eve. I've been going back and forth with RM about it and she's been great at trying to explain. I just can't make that leap that Mary was without sin immaculately. I don't understand the "Full of Grace" issue. I know the scripture reference well. But is there something from the original language that literally says "without sin"? If not, I can't seem to make that stretch for me.

 

Again, for you Catholics out there, I'm curious. I'm sincerely not trying to attack your core beliefs. Just trying to understand where they come from.

 

It's as foreign to you as the concept that revealed truth should come only from one book is to us. For Catholics, tradition doesn't proceed from scripture, but the other way around.

 

Like so many questions of faith, the matter of the Immaculate Conception was discussed and studied for a very, very long time. These sorts of questions have always come up time and again through the centuries. Some of them were critical enough to the survival of the Church that they were worked out early: the beliefs of the Arians and the Gnostics for example.

Essentially, our belief on Immaculate Conception was only finally written down as doctrine in Ineffabilis Deus in the 1800's much as the law of gravity was only written down as law in Newton's Principia in the 1600's. Gravity has always existed, but it was only in the 17th century that man was able to grasp it's nature and describe it - it's a similar case, we believe, with the Virgin Mary's Immaculate Conception.

So, was it or was it not church doctrine until the middle of the 1800's?

 

Teachings can take time to develop. The protestant Christian faiths didn't come about until some 1400 years after Christ lived.

As you know from your long experience in these matters, discussion of the Biblical basis for certain beliefs and practices between Catholics and many Protestant denominations is problematic for two reasons 1) even within the Bible itself, we have a few different books and 2) Catholics have historically used numerous extra-biblical writings as sources of revealed truth, from the Didache to the writings of the Early Fathers. In this particular discussion, Tobit and 2 Maccabees are particularly important from a Catholic perspective; neither book appears in most Protestant Bibles. These discussions have proven to be very difficult when we're not even standing at the same starting line, much less looking at the course from the same perspective.

 

I think that's the crux of it. It makes for a difficult task to try to debate an issue from two different foundations. The verse from Tobit is of no value in this debate from a Protestant perspective.

 

Someone needs to definitively win the Sola Scriptura argument first. Then we can proceed to tackle these other issues.

 

FWIW, understanding this has helped me tremendously with regards to a better understanding of Catholics. I've thoroughly enjoyed my discussions with the Catholic members of BGP and have a much better grasp of their beliefs and where they come from. It goes without saying that I differ on a few of them, but I don't feel that it is necessary to try to win a debate. It cannot be done for the very reason quoted, IMO.

 

Rather, I believe it is better to seek to understand the other view. Where does it come from? I appreciate all those who have responded in past threads for enlightening me on the Catholic beliefs.

Edited August 21, 201214 yr by 5wide

Someone needs to definitively win the Sola Scriptura argument first. Then we can proceed to tackle these other issues.

 

:thumb:

I think that's the crux of it. It makes for a difficult task to try to debate an issue from two different foundations. The verse from Tobit is of no value in this debate from a Protestant perspective.

 

Someone needs to definitively win the Sola Scriptura argument first. Then we can proceed to tackle these other issues.

 

FWIW, understanding this has helped me tremendously with regards to a better understanding of Catholics. I've thoroughly enjoyed my discussions with the Catholic members of BGP and have a much better grasp of their beliefs and where they come from. It goes without saying that I differ on a few of them, but I don't feel that it is necessary to try to win a debate. It cannot be done for the very reason quoted, IMO.

 

Rather, I believe it is better to seek to understand the other view. Where does it come from? I appreciate all those who have responded in past threads for enlightening me on the Catholic beliefs.

Exactly how I feel, well said.

See, all I read there is that he prayed directly to God for God to intercede on behalf of Sodom. I guess we just simply differ on the scope and context of what constitutes an "intercession." What differentiates that passage from "prayer?"

 

Intercession essentially is prayer. Just as there are prayers of petition and prayers of thanksgiving, so are there prayers of intercession.

 

To quote the Catholic faith's Hail Mary prayer, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death". We are directly asking for her prayer - of intercession.

So, was it or was it not church doctrine until the middle of the 1800's?

 

The theology had been discussed/argued/etc. in writtings found over a 1,000 years ago. It wasn't until Vatican Council I that all the details and questions where answered and the church had an official teaching.

 

A similar thing happened in the first few centuries of the church. The Early Christians argued early on about the relationship of Jesus and the Holy Spirit with the Father. All pretty much accepted the Father as God. They accepted Jesus as His Son. What they couldn't agree on was, since Jesus is the Father's Son, is Jesus human or divine but just embodied as a man for appearance? Is Jesus another God and are we now polithesists? What about the Holy Spirit? Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit was our helper, does that make the Holy Spirit another God? Over time the views began to go the direction that the question of whether Jesus is man or divine is not an "or" statement, rather he is man AND divine, two natures in one being. As far as if He is another God, the views moved towards that he is God with the Father not another God and the Holy Spirit is part of this God also. Now known as the Trinity. While the teaching was pretty much settled, it wasn't till later that if was officially defined in the Council of Nicea which also summarized the view of Trinity (and other topics) in the Nicene Creed.

The theology had been discussed/argued/etc. in writtings found over a 1,000 years ago. It wasn't until Vatican Council I that all the details and questions where answered and the church had an official teaching.

 

A similar thing happened in the first few centuries of the church. The Early Christians argued early on about the relationship of Jesus and the Holy Spirit with the Father. All pretty much accepted the Father as God. They accepted Jesus as His Son. What they couldn't agree on was, since Jesus is the Father's Son, is Jesus human or divine but just embodied as a man for appearance? Is Jesus another God and are we now polithesists? What about the Holy Spirit? Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit was our helper, does that make the Holy Spirit another God? Over time the views began to go the direction that the question of whether Jesus is man or divine is not an "or" statement, rather he is man AND divine, two natures in one being. As far as if He is another God, the views moved towards that he is God with the Father not another God and the Holy Spirit is part of this God also. Now known as the Trinity. While the teaching was pretty much settled, it wasn't till later that if was officially defined in the Council of Nicea which also summarized the view of Trinity (and other topics) in the Nicene Creed.

 

Of course, there were many Councils of Nicaea over time, the one in the 300's particularly to fight against Arianism (your discussion on point), and this is also where what we now know as the Bible was first canonized.

 

The problem I have with the introduction of "other" texts as a bases for the faith is that it opens the door for anyone claiming to have a divinely inspired text to gain authority. For example, if the Catholic Church later accepts the written texts of later Papacies to be authoritative, why not, for example, the Book of Mormon, also a 19th century text? Very slippery slope.

In regards to Intercession, this is a topic which comes from the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox, don't forget our brothers to the East) teaching of the Communion of Saints. I won't lie, this is a topic I am a little rusty on but let me give what I do know. The teaching is that there is a spiritual unity (or communion) between the saints (those in heaven) and those of us on earth. To use vulgar everyday terms, we are all in this together. Those who have reached heaven yurn for those of us on this planet to reach heaven also and their prayers and our are both heard by God. This does not mean we should worship them which is idolatry, but mentioning them in prayer is fine and can be benficial. Unfortunately, some Catholics do think we are supposed to worship Mary and those in heaven and mistakenly do. That is a misconception the church is trying to correct.

 

As an example. I was at a fund raiser for a Pro Life organization. A speaker brought up an Italian woman who was having a tragic delivery. Doctors informed the woman that giving birth would certainly lead to hemmoraging and death and she was pressured to abort her child. The mother steadfastly refused. She decided to allow herself to die so her daughter could be born. While still conscious she prayed to Jesus for her soon to be born daughter and said to Mary that she hoped she showed a small glimmer of the courage Mary showed in accepting Jesus into her womb. She eventually lost conscious and did die. To this day her daughter (who is an adult now) is often asked to speak about this story. The story touched everyone present. Catholics and Eastern Ortodox Christians would see it as appropriate to ask this mother (who's name I cannot remember) to pray for all women considering abortion as part of their prayers to God.