The “New” Dogma of the Immaculate Conception



J: First of all my friend, I am not anti_Catholic. The word is a bit harsh as it forments hatred, but let me assure you that i am not an anti-Catholic. My wife in fact is a Catholic.

BFHU: I apologize, I did not in any way mean to imply that you were anti-Catholic. And I also did not mean anti Catholic people but people who are anti-the-Catholic-Church. They 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.

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.

Full of Grace


Mary & Lamb of GodQ. Where in Scripture does it teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

A. The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not clearly taught in Scripture in a way that would satisfy a skeptic. But, to be honest, neither is the Doctrine of the Trinity. I know, because I spent hours trying to discover it, in order to show a friend who was a Jehovah’s Witness.

What we do find in Scripture are oblique comments that only make sense if the underlying doctrine that gave rise to the comments are known.

For instance, Jesus instructs his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in Matthew 28. This verse is cited when arguing for the Trinity. But does it unequivocally teach the Doctrine of the Trinity? No. But if you can understand that this verse rests upon and takes for granted that the listeners have already been instructed in the Doctrine of the Trinity thus no further explanation is necessary. Why else is name singular unless it denotes a trinitarian God-Father, Son & Holy Spirit?

Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:41-42)

Elizabeth declared both Jesus and Mary “blessed”. Sinless perhaps? Some kind of equality there.

But this verse is very soft evidence of the underlying theology of the Immaculate Conception.

THE ANNUNCIATION

A stronger implication of the doctrine is found in the greeting to Mary from the angel in Luke 1:28:

“Hail! Full of Grace!”

The Greek word, chairo means “hail” or “rejoice.” Every other use of this verb hail/chairo in the New Testament, that is followed by a noun, declares the title of the person being saluted. For example, in Matthew 26:49, Judas greets Jesus with “Hail! Master!” Similarly, in Matthew 27:29 soldiers mockingly bow before Jesus saying, “Hail! King of the Jews!” “Master” and “King of the Jews” are being uses as titles of Christ, just like “Jesus Christ.”

So, the phrase, Full Of Grace, which follows the angel’s “Hail!,” is her title. It is “Full of Grace.” This might seem like an odd name, but in OT days God often had people named with strange titles to reveal some truth. For example, in Isaiah 7:3 we find that one of Isaiah’s sons was named “A Remnant Shall Return.”

The title given to Mary is a form of the Greek word, “charitoo,” which means “to endow with grace,” “highly favored.” We see this title, given to Mary by the angel Gabriel as evidence for the truthfulness of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. “Kecharitomene” is the actual Greek word translated in various versions of the Bible as “full of grace,” “O favored one,” etc. This Greek word literally means “having been highly favored” or “having been full of grace” (Luke 1:28).

The phrase, “full of grace,” doesn’t jump out as a reason to consider Mary something unique—one who from conception was without sin!

But, as Origen commented, in the second century, the angel’s greeting was an expression never before used to address someone. Even Mary was puzzled by such an unusual salutation (Luke 1:29).

So, many might be convinced that the Angel was calling Mary by a new name but wasn’t it merely a new name to express the honor of her upcoming state of blessedness as the mother of the Messiah?

No, because kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle. This means that Mary was filled with grace in the past and this fullness of grace continues to the present. Therefore this fullness of grace is not new. It will not begin with the Incarnation and is not due to her maternity alone.

So, the angel’s words were a declaration of existing fact, not a prophecy of a future event. Rather than the title “You are about to be full of grace”kecharitomene would mean “You have been and still are full of grace”.

The Angel’s greeting reveals the unstated and universally accepted fact that Mary had been given the fullness of God’s grace in her past before the angel’s announcement—way in her past, from the time of her conception. Mary was created by God without the defect of Original Sin. She was created in the Fullness of Grace, The Fullness of Humanity just as Adam and Eve had been created.

Whereas, Adam and Eve disobeyed God, Mary obeyed God throughout her whole life. And, if you were God, entirely HOLY and you could create your mother in which to dwell in the incarnation would you choose a sinful woman or an immaculate one?

Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary



Q. How can anyone really believe that the pope was infallibly informed about the immaculate conception in 1854 and Assumption of Mary in 1950, so late in the history of the Church?

A. I would have trouble believing these doctrines too if they were first introduced nearly two thousand years after Christ. However, that is not what the dates mentioned mean. The Christian Faith was taught by the apostles and those they ordained to continue the ministry. The Pope and bishops have never sat down and solemnly and systematically declared all of the doctrines of the Catholic Faith. That isn’t how she works. She evangelizes, baptizes, teaches, and administers the sacraments. Doctrines are not defined until and unless they become seriously threatened by heresy.

For instance, controversy arose in ACTS about whether Gentiles had to keep all of the Jewish laws and be circumcised. The controversy was examined and settled at the very first Church Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). Most of the heresies in the early Church involved wrong ideas about Jesus. Was he merely a holy man? Was he a god that appeared to be a man? Was he a man who became a god at his baptism? Was he fully God and fully man? All of these were settled at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD when the Doctrine of the Trinity was defined. This doctrine was not invented or communicated to the pope for the first time at this date. The doctrine existed from the very beginning but when heresy grew and threatened the truth, the Pope and the bishops met in council and settled the issue clearly and once and for all.

Again, later, due to confusion and controversy the Pope and Council of Hippo defined the contents of the New Testament in 393 AD and 397 AD. The pope did not invent the Doctrine of the Trinity in 325 AD or the New Testament in 397 AD. This is exactly the case with the Doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. They have been believed from the beginning. But with the rise of Protestantism these doctrines became more and more threatened and so were solemnly and clearly defined.
-Reblogged from 6/28/10

All Have Sinned and the Immaculate Conception


Sonya:   The immaculate conception of Mary…I ‘ve read that you believe she is an exception to “all” just like Jesus. However, the only reason we believe Jesus was an exception is because we are plainly told in the scripture that he “knew no sin” and was “yet without sin” etc. No mention is ever made of this toward Mary. Seems the most reasonable explanation for all is all if there is not a clear exception shown.

Bread From Heaven: If Sola Scriptura was an authentic and scriptural doctrine regarding all theology your point might be correct. However, since it is not in Scripture and did not exist in Christian thought until Martin Luther invented it a mere 500 years ago, you certainly are not bound by it, even as a Protestant. And the Catholic Church, which wrote and canonized the Scriptures is most definitely not bound by a Protest-ant and Heretical teaching.

This will not satisfy you as proof but Mary’s sinlessness is obliquely referred to when the angel announces her divine maternity. For what Biblical evidence we have, see–>Immaculate Conception

All does not always mean absolutely all in scripture. For instance, regarding the plagues of Egypt scripture says that they occurred in “all the land of Egypt” and yet we are also told that the Israelites, who also lived in Egypt, escaped these plagues. So, all did not mean absolutely all.

Psalm 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

But, then we have the same author talking about men who are righteous, who do good in many other passages in Psalms.

Psalm 18:20
Jehovah hath rewarded me according to my righteousness; According to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me

Psalm 1:5Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
Psalm 1:6For the LORD knows the way of the righteous,But the way of the wicked will perish.
Psalm 5:12For it is You who blesses the righteous man, O LORD,
Psalm 11:3If the foundations are destroyed,What can the righteous do?”
Psalm 11:5The LORD tests the righteousand the wicked,

Psalm 52:6 The righteous also shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him:

So, it seems that we can’t count on all meaning absolutely all. It can be used  hyperbolically and not meant to be taken absolutely literally. Similarly to how a child or teenager might say, “But Mom, all the kids have one.” Click Here–> The Righteous. Noah, Abraham, Job,
Remember, the authors of the New Testament did not include everything they knew. But they could teach everything over time, orally. They did not write a book of systematic theology. They wrote enough to explain who Jesus was and evangelize. And they were promised that,

“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 said to you.John 14:26

This was a promise Jesus made to His apostles and not to anyone else. He could have made this to everyone. But I don’t think too many would claim that He has brought to their personal remembrance all that Jesus said in His life on Earth.

John 20:30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John 21: 25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.


Can Mary Mediate and Intercede?


Immaculate Conception

Kerrin:There is a very big difference between what you call Intercessory prayer and praying for one another, please don’t confuse the two.

The bible very clearly states that Jesus is the only Mediator (Intercessor) between God and man, in the following verse:

1 Timothy 2:5: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

The Bible also very clearly says that we should pray for one another, in the following verse:

James 5:16 Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.

As you see, the Bible makes a very clear and definable difference between praying for one another, and Intercessory prayer (Mediating), which is only possible through Jesus.

Bread From Heaven: Mary joins her prayers to ours to our Lord. Asking for her to pray for us is nothing more than asking our friends to pray for us. James 5:16.

I think you are incorrect about the use of the words intercede and mediate. Let’s take a look at the definitions,

in·ter·cede

1.to act or interpose in behalf of someone in difficulty or trouble, as by pleading or petition: to intercede with the governor for a condemned man.
2.to attempt to reconcile differences between two people or groups; mediate.

So any human may intercede for another human. But, if we use it as in the second definition, only Jesus can intercede to reconcile many with God. But any human can also attempt to reconcile differences between two people. And any human may intercede or petition God on behalf of another as in the first definition.

me·di·ate

1.to settle (disputes, strikes, etc.) as an intermediary between parties; reconcile.
2.to bring about (an agreement, accord, truce, peace, etc.) as an intermediary between parties by compromise, reconciliation, removal of misunderstanding, etc.
3.to effect (a result) or convey (a message, gift, etc.) by or as if by an intermediary.

As we look at the definition of mediate, we see why it was used in I Tim 2:5. It is much more about bringing peace and reconciliation between two parties. It is more like the second definition of intercede. And Jesus is the only one who can bring reconciliation between God and Man in regards to salvation and the forgiveness of sin. It is in this way that He is the One mediator between God and Man.

But any human can mediate in the sense of the third definition and convey a message to God for another. So, any time I join my prayers to my friends’ prayers I am conveying a message to God on behalf of my friend, even when I pray for someone’s salvation. I am in the middle, mediating between God and my friend. But, NOT, in the sense of the definition one or two. Only Jesus can actually DO that.

Now, as regards your assertion:

nowhere in the Bible does it state that she is (an intercessor).

I must make the point that nowhere in the Bible does it say that all religious truth MUST be found ONLY in the Bible. Sola Scriptura or Scripture Alone, is a tradition of the man Martin Luther. But we are told to pray for one another. So, our asking Mary to pray for us and her praying for us is, according to James 5:16is simply “praying for one another.”

Kerrin: Any prayers to her are futile and worthless at best. Pray to our Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus, but whatever you do, NEVER pray to Mary.

Bread From Heaven: Why? What is wrong with it? According to your own beliefs, where in Scripture does it say we cannot ask another member of the Body of Christ to pray for us?

Kerrin: Jesus himself put Mary on the same level as any other sinner that ever lived, in need of repentance and Salvation through his sinless Sacrifice.

Bread From Heaven: Where is this in Scripture? I can tell you now that you will not find it.

Mary was human. Yes.

She needed a savior. Yes.

But Jesus saved her at her conception and removed the fallen nature from her, that she otherwise would have inherited from her parents. Mary, through the grace of God and her cooperation with that Grace, remained sinless throughout her life. Just like Adam and Eve could have done, but did not. Even if you do not believe this you have to admit that God could have done this great grace for Mary.

December 8th, is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.Pray for us.

The Immaculate Conception


Q. Does the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refer to Jesus or Mary?

A. This doctrine refers to Mary. She was conceived in the normal way by her parents. It was immaculate because Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin passed on to the human race from Adam and Eve. Just as God created Adam and Eve without the stain of original sin He caused Mary to be conceived without sin just like them. But unlike our first parents, Mary, with the grace of God, resisted the temptation to sin and remained sinless throughout her life.

Q. Then why does Mary refer to “God my savior”(Lk. 1:47)? If she never sinned she wouldn’t need a savior. Mary doesn’t seem to know she is sinless.

A. Mary called God her savior for the simple reason that she did need a savior to save her from the stain of original sin. God saved Mary at her conception, before she ever sinned. Just like a person can be saved from quicksand after falling in or saved from the quicksand before stepping into it.

Technorati Tags: , , ,