The Immaculate Conception is a Lie!!!


 

Immaculate Conception - detail 1

 

J:  The Immaculate Conception is a crazy lie of the Devil.

BFHU:  Many truly believe the Catholic Church is leading people astray and they trust the misinformation they have been taught about the Catholic Church without making sure it is true.

The errors of the “Reformation” had begun to confuse the faithful to such an extent that the declaration of the Immaculate Conception of Mary needed to be clearly and finally proclaimed. So this was done in 1859 in oppostition to the heresy that Mary was a sinner.

J: the basis of the “Reformation” movement is only the Bible. So are you saying that the Bible has erred in its teaching as this has confused the Catholic faithful?

BFHU: Not at all. Protestant interpretation of the Bible is in error. And based on these errors the Catholic Faithful became confused so the Church clearly states what is to be believed by Catholic Christians based on the authentic and historic Christian Faith. This is especially true in England and America where the culture has been more influenced by Protestantism than by Catholicism.

For instance, it has always been believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. We have no dogma on this but it is foreseeable that in the not too distant future we may need to make a dogmatic declaration of this doctrine because of the confusion our culture is injecting into the minds and hearts of the faithful. The date of that dogmatic declaration, if it becomes necessary, will not be the date it was first believed that marriage is between a man and a woman, but the date it was dogmatically defined. There is a big difference.

J: marriage between man and woman only is emphatically taught by the Scriptures as the only way to go.

BFHU: Yes you are correct it is clearly taught in scripture. But we are beginning to have Protestant churches accepting homosexual marriage. And the whole culture is pressing towards this acceptance by everyone. Many people of good will become confused by the cultural assertions of discrimination and unfairness and begin to wonder if maybe the Bible is wrong or the Church’s teaching is wrong. The English Protestant Church in America (Episcopalian) ordained an active homosexual a bishop!

J. Marriage between a man and a woman in the Biblical context, is a dogma.

BFHU:I agree it must be believed but a dogma in the Catholic Church is a juridical proclamation from the Holy See. It is more than just an interpretation of Sacred Scripture. It has more authority because it comes from the official and final teaching of the Church.

J. It is unbelievable that the Catholic church does not have any stand on this yet… that marriage is only between a man and a woman

BFHU: You are misunderstanding me. The Catholic Church does have a stand on this and has always had a stand on it. The Catholic Church has always taught that marriage is between a man and a woman. This has never been seriously questioned for 2000 years of the Church’s existence. But, today, that is no longer the case. Our culture is mounting an aggressive attack upon this belief. And they are making headway among those without faith, which is not as surprising as the fact that they are beginning to convince or at least confuse many people who are Christian. If this heresy begins to make serious inroads of confusion and acceptance among the baptized THEN the Church will issue the teaching as a DOGMA. This makes the teaching absolute, binding, forceful, with no more debate or calling it into question by anyone who is a faithful Catholic.

The purpose of defining a teaching or belief as a dogma of the faith is NOT to propose something new, or change anything at all. Its purpose is to END HERESY.

J: Again, this is not an apple to apple comparison, marriage between man and woman is scriptural while immaculate conception is not.

BFHU: I was not saying the two teachings were equivalent scripturally. I was trying to use a modern example to explain why Catholic teachings are made dogmatic at dates late in history. The immaculate conception of Mary had always been a tenent of the Historic Christian Faith. But when the heresy first arose that Mary was a sinner (1500’s) the Church did nothing. But after the heresy had been around for 300 years the Catholic Faithful were beginning to fall prey to this heresy and so in 1859 the Catholic Church dogmatically defined the Immaculate Conception of Mary once and for all.

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity was defined as Dogma at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Nearly 300 years after Jesus died. The Church did not invent the Doctrine of the Trinity , for the very first time, at the Council of Nicea. The Church made it a Dogma and clearly defined it in response to the Arian heresy that denied the divinity of Christ. It was not a new belief; it was defined dogamatically to stem the tide of heresy.

Advertisements

7 Responses

  1. If I may interject; This is one of the reasons I have not come back to the Catholic church. If this were in fact a truth from God, then it would bear itself out someplace in the 66 books which the Catholic church canonized as Scripture. It requires faith in the Pope and his determinations – aside from Scripture to accept the Catholic church teaching that Mary “was without sin”. This flys in the face of the Scripture that teaches; “…all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” and yes; I know the counter argument suggesting the Bible teaches Job was sinless. Actually the Bible does not teach that. It simply says he was ‘blameless’ which we can debate, I am sure.

    The fact is there isn’t anything in Scripture that suggests Mary was sinless, born of a virgin et al. In fact, it makes light of the Biblical truth that all mankind needed a Savior. It suggests, Mary did not need a Savior.

    The other problem with Mariology is the level of emphasis placed on Mary. Regardless of what apologists declare the church teaches, all Catholics I know (and my entire family is Catholic except a few and most of my friends), spend much more time in prayer to Mary than they do taking their ‘petitions and supplications’ to God – directly, ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’. In fact, the Rosary is a prime example of the unbalanced nature of this teaching. Rote prayer/poems to Mary stand at ten to one in the Rosary with the Pinnacle prayer being the Salve Regina which declares Mary to be the Queen. Whether intentional or an unfortunate indulgent use of praise, the outcome is the same; most Catholics believe (all I know at the least), that Mary is ‘the’ Queen in Heaven. Where does that or anything like it bear out in the very Scriptural texts the Catholic church assembled?

    Again; it defies logic to accept that this and other extra-biblical teachings are correct and yet absent from the Scripture. There was Jesus,12 Apostles and 27 letters/epistles/books in the New Testament and no one considered this important enough (and for that matter God did not consider it important enough to cause his Scribes/Apostles), to declare this most unique and biblically antithetical teaching on Mary?

    There is no balance in this and ultimately, Catholics believe their prayers to Mary are the thing that keep them balanced and ultimately, on the track to Heaven. If this is not Catholic teaching, then the church has done a miserable job clearing it up – where the rubber meets the road.

    Please keep in mind that I was Catholic for 18 years, attended all 12 years of CCD/Catechism classes, attended church every Sunday, Holy Day et al over the fear I would commit a mortal sin for missing one. I also attended another family church in New Brunswick. What I was taught and came to believe is not to be disputed here. I know what was taught whether-or-not Rome approved of it.

  2. BTW; I agree that the world has infected the church. It was the case during the Apostles lifetime, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and so many others fought against heresy and the attempted inclusion of heretical teachings into church doctrine. But; there is no Scriptural confusion over marriage. It is quite clear. People have to choose to ignore what the Bible clearly says about perverted couplings and choose to ignore what God declared about marriage in order to ‘believe’ something different. Those churches which have chosen to ignore Scripture have seared their consciences.

    This discussion of Mary, requires willing adherence to extra-biblical teachings about her sin/sinless nature as declared by men well after the last of the New Testament books/scrolls was written.

  3. @ J:

    Unfortunately, the 18 years of Catholicism (and attending all 12 years of CCD/Catechism classes) didn’t quite teach you correctly that the Church had in fact canonized 73 books as scripture. What happened?

    It seems that you’ve swept away the Church with a giant brush stroke. What about the Church being established personally by Christ, Peter and his successors being the bearers of the keys of the Kingdom of God with the right to rule and govern, and of Christ’s own piercing words: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you reject me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me”? So is the Church which gave you the bible is suddenly not good enough for you to teach you faith and morals?

    I think that you’ve fallen into the heresy of “Sola Scriptura”, a novelty invented by one man, Martin Luther in the 16th Century. One should ask: Did Christ believe in sola scriptura? The Apostles and the first Christians? Did the bible itself even taught sola scriptura? There’re plenty of resources for you to do the research and study for yourself here on this blog and else where. For Immaculate Conception, a good place is Steve Ray’s website: http://www.catholic-convert.com/2011/12/08/immaculate-conception-and-falling-in-the-mud/

    Maybe you should try to think like a people of God. When Mary was told of the Incarnation, she “TREASURED up all these things and PONDERED in her heart.” Likewise, many mysteries of God will probably never be fully understood by the creature until one sees God in heaven. Yes, the Church knew about the truth of the “Immaculate Conception” from the beginning but it took centuries for the greatest minds of the Church to ponder and explain it in precise theologically terms. Moreover, the Christocentric and Marian doctrines were only defined when major heresies arose so there was a need to clarify and guard the Christian people from errors. The doctrine of Immaculate Conception was defined to combat the errors of Post-Protestantism and Modernism. For a good explanation on the development of Christian doctrines, search for John Henry Cardinal Newman’s book with the same title.

    As Christians, we should believe when the bible says: “These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and BRING TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE ALL THAT I HAVE SAID TO YOU” (Jn 14:25-26). It’s theologically unsound to think that the Holy Spirit is somehow no longer active in the world to guide and teach the Church. Further along in the gospel, it continues: “I have yet MANY THINGS to say to you but you CANNOT BEAR THEM NOW. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth … he will declare to you the THINGS THAT ARE TO COME” (Jn 16:12-13). So when the time is ripe, God confirms more truths through his Church.

    Mary was not exempted from the universality of Christ’s redemption. In fact, it is perfectly Catholic to say with the bible: “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my Savior for He has looked with favor on His lowly servant.” One needs to understand Catholic teaching on her doctrines before rejecting her wisdom which is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit.

  4. Actually, Surkiko, those CCD classes didn’t teach me a bloody thing about the Bible specifically. THAT was the problem. Those extra books are not believed to be inspired and even the Catholic church considers them deuterocanonical, don’t they? Instead of slicing with that tongue, try teaching! The fact is, Mariology establishes Mary (salve Regina is an expression of how the church sees her; “Queen”), as another deity or at least elevated being. AGAIN; if this is not so, they have some work to do because that prayer/poem as well as others written to glorify her indicate that to all except self-appointed apologists, like yourself. Has it ever occurred to you to ask why the church hasn’t written one extra-biblical poem/rote prayer to or about Jesus, assigned to a device like the rosary, to glorify him? Can you explain why nothing in Scripture, identifies Mary as “another divine”…and stop it with the Solar Scriptural argument/myth. Volumes have been written post Scriptural, by many that we readily accept. The problem is, the Catholic church has “added” to Scripture – not revealed or expounded, as in the case of Mary.

  5. @ J: Well, what do you think is the definition of deuterocanonical (or protocanonical for that matter)? You need a hard education. Can’t rewrite history or the Oxford dictionary. Too bad that you were badly catechized. Why did you need 12 years of CCD and yet still not learning anything?

  6. You have a hard edge. The point of defining them as deuterocanonical or’ in addition to’, aside from the septuagint, was that they were in fact contested even in the day they were considered. BTW; I am not one who thinks they needed to/should have been expunged (17th-18th century).

    As to your wonderfully “Christian” and “loving” attempt to humiliate me; after 26 years in the Marine Corps, your attempts to belittle me will simply entertain me.

    What I walked away with, from those catechism classes/CCD, is what I carry with me today. So rather than assume they were well taught, or even taught differently, you might consider the teacher – or the material was not nearly as effective (by your standard) as they could have been.

    And the 12 years, was as a youngster – not an intensive, college curricula. Think of it more as “Sunday School for kids, but on Wednesday nights.

    Never-the-less, there were but a few of us who were “encouraged” to attend by our parents.

    Also consider that I grew up during a period of time that Catholics such as yourself do not hold in particularly fond memory; the 60’s. I watched the church that declared all of its teachings as absolute, the trappings as ‘not to be defiled’, a time when to step into the ‘sacristy’ and that just inside the altar rail (with the altar), was an offense equal to that of a mortal sin.

    We then watched as they ripped the altar from the wall, dropped Latin in the Mass, changed receiving the communion wafer from closed eyes, no touching et al, to taking it with your hands, eyes opened, organ music and old, established hymns to Hippies inside the altar rail singing Kumbaya…you get the picture.

    Point is, an impressionable youth seeing the absolute changed by the “incorruptible”, very soon leads to an understanding that man is still man and capable of deceit – even in the things “of God”.

    And even today, the “obedient” and loyal followers of Catholicism still complain about the move away from teh Latin liturgy and, pretty much in defiance of that which Rome has declared to be “the way”, seek churches with Priests dedicated to the old way. Submission you say? Consistency you say?

    And no; I do not believe Matthew 16 is Jesus transferring power and responsibility to Peter uniquely. For one thing there is no indication that Paul (who wrote the larger share of Scripture), ever “submitted” to Peter. And the binding and loosing is a reference also used by the Jews to permit or forbid suggesting an authority (yes), to teach the new Church (body of believers). While I can appreciate that the Catholic church seized upon this as some kind of individual gifting – aside from the other Apostles and therefore establishing Peter uniquely, it simply doesn’t follow except for man’s proclivity to assume power and avarice – even in the midst of that which belongs to Christ.

    The difference between you and I is that you have submitted to men, while I submit to Christ and the word of God. And while much of what we believe Scripture says, we share, there are other things we do not and those are things which establish brand, new, beliefs about things not established in the many books of the Bible – either 66 or 73, like whether Mary was born of a virgin conception, was sinless, was assumed etc.

    I do hold that John 14:6 and other Scriptures that hold Christ at the center, and define Faith in Him as pre-eminent, are the keys to salvation. No amount of tapestry, bone fragments in marble edifices, poems to Mary, prayer beads or other trappings will get you there and may even be serving as diversions from the ultimate truth that our focus should be on Jesus the promised Christ, and him alone.

    I still consider you a Brother (Sister) in Christ but there are things we may never agree on.

  7. @ J:

    Do you really expect to come to a Catholic blog and assume that the Catholics will just lie down and play dead? The original question was how many books did the Church defined as canonical. There were 73 and not 66 as alleged by you. You then tried to mislead people by pointing out the deuterocanonical books as if they are still disputed in the Church. Never for the Catholics who follow the Christ and His Church faithfully. The deuterocanonical books are included in the Christian canon of scriptures whether you like it or not.

    So you then went away and decided to attack the Church for making Mary a divine. You should at least have the decency and integrity to acknowledge that that’s wasn’t and is never the teaching of the Church. And about the prayers to Jesus, there are literally thousand upon thousand of prayers to Jesus Christ in the Church. I guess that you have never looked up a Catholic prayer book or any of the spiritual writings by the popes, saints and Catholic authors. As far as bad catechisis, I grew up in the same church as you did except that I followed the magisterium closely and was able to discern what were the essentials and those that were simply customs and the small (t)raditions. The 60’s and 70’s were a time of tempest within and without the church. Since you have been (I assume) away from the church, you probably never knew the beautiful Divine Mercy rosary which is completely Christocentric. This last weekend, I examined the CCD materials of my 3rd grade grandchildren. They are marvelous (and I even learn a thing or two from looking through them). By the way, my son-inlaw was also a former Marine and he is a convert from Lutheranism even before he met my daughter.

    I will strongly suggest that you learn about the faith of your youth and then go from there. If there’re anything which you missed before (because of bad catechists), you will find plenty of resources readily available on the internet and books. Or shout your questions here … but with “gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet 3:15).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: