ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Doctrine Of Immaculate Conception

This question is for Protestants only.

What does the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception mean and teach?

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The Who Is Mary Bible Quiz
 ---Cluny on 6/16/17
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



I don't see where any early Church Fathers exalted the RCC. Most of that came latter.

Now some ideas from the Early Church fathers are taken up by the RCC.

The RCC claims power from the beginning. That popes have always been in charge of the church. That is incorrect from the truth in history.
---Samuelbb7 on 7/9/17


Jerry6593:

You wrote: The papacy (the Bishop of Rome) ruled supremely in Europe from 538 A.D. when the last of the Arian tribes was forced out of Rome and into oblivion, until 1798 A.D. when the French general Berthier took the pope captive, which history records a period of 1,260 years, as predicted in Scripture.

And just which scripture would that be?
---StrongAxe on 7/9/17


Jerry and Kathr:

I challenge you both name 3 church fathers, name the books chapters and verses where they taught, defended, and believed in the RCC??

Give the context so we can all go read it??


Hope to hear back from you soon,

John
---john9346 on 7/9/17

That should be so easy:)
---Ruben on 7/9/17


Jerry and Kathr:

I challenge you both name 3 church fathers, name the books chapters and verses where they taught, defended, and believed in the RCC??

Give the context so we can all go read it??


Hope to hear back from you soon,

John
---john9346 on 7/9/17


John: "Patently false, the rcc didn't exist until about the 12th-13th century."

You are incorrect.

The papacy (the Bishop of Rome) ruled supremely in Europe from 538 A.D. when the last of the Arian tribes was forced out of Rome and into oblivion, until 1798 A.D. when the French general Berthier took the pope captive, which history records a period of 1,260 years, as predicted in Scripture.



---Jerry6593 on 7/9/17




John, you being still partially Catholic, is understandable where your sensitivity to this issue comes. The Apostles NEVER EVER, not even once exalted Mary as the RCC has....that absolutely existed before the 12th century. The first crusade happened long before that John, we all know was initiated by the FALSE CHURCH WHO HAD POPES RUNNING IT. Protestant churches never had POPES OR was it insitutionalized with a Head other than Jesus as HEAD of the CHURCH. Even in John words in Revelation written in 95ad, we see a warning AGAINST this very institution where John warns against this harlot MYSTERY BABYLON, and his 7 letters to the churches warn against this very institution already in existance trying to infiltrate the TRUE CHURCH OF GOD.
---kathr4453 on 7/9/17


John obviously needs a lesson here. According to the RCC, Peter was the FIRST POPE, and then came St Linus.

To say the RCC didn't begin until the 12th to 13th century is so .....what John.....?????

Why do you think it's so important for the RCC to place Peter in ROME from the beginning?

Every Catholic website will list every POPE of the RCC from Peter on, and THEY make no distinction about any 12-13 Century.

Mary was not introduced into ANYTHING until around 300-400 ad by this FALSE CHURCH who has LIED from the beginning, since Peter was NEVER in Rome in the first place.
---kathr4453 on 7/9/17


Belief in the incarnation of God the Son through Mary is the basis for calling her the Mother of God, which was declared a dogma at the Council of Ephesus in 431. At the Second Vatican Council and in Pope John Paul II's encyclical Redemptoris Mater, she is spoken of also as Mother of the Church.

THIS is what I was talking about John. THIS is false doctrine still part of the RCC.

The TRUE CHURCH does not call anyone POPE THIS OR THAT.
---kathr4453 on 7/9/17


Kathr states, "There was no such teaching of Mary WHATSOEVER, until the 2nd and 3rd century."

Tell us, who taught this? The gnostics are the Christians? Tell us which one?


Kathr states, "It began when the RCC wanting to bring in the Greeks needed to do so by offering a Virgin Godess to replace the Dianna."

Patently false, the rcc didn't exist until about the 12th-13th century.
---john9346 on 7/8/17


There was no such teaching of Mary WHATSOEVER, until the 2nd and 3rd century. It began when the RCC wanting to bring in the Greeks needed to do so by offering a Virgin Godess to replace the Dianna. It worked. And it worked with ALL HEATHAN groups who worshipped a virgin goddess. There were many virgin goddesses along with many gods. And this is HOW the RCC was able to convert so many heathans( yes Virgin goddesses go all the way back to Nimrod) ....not by preaching the true GOSPEL, but by making it easy to trade one false god and goddess for another. And not only with this but by adopting MANY HEATHAN practices and trying to sanitize them....re Christmas, Easter holidays......Even Islam has a love affair with the Virgin Mary.
---kathr4453 on 7/8/17




Michael_e states, "2nd-3rd century Christianity elevated Mary."

This is incorrect the Marian Dogmas developed over time.

The only people who worshipped Mary as God during the early centuries were the gnostics who weren't "Christians."


The IC Dogma AD 1854

The Bodily Assumption of Mary AD 1950 Nov 1st
---john9346 on 7/7/17


\\2nd-3rd century Christianity elevated Mary\\

Please give specific examples of this, with names of persons, dates they flourished, and appropriate excerpts from their writings.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/6/17


A false view is Jesus was sinless because of the virgin birth, Jesus was always sinless. It doesn't glorify Mary. Luke 1:28-30, 2nd-3rd century Christianity elevated Mary
It does teach Gods involvement in Jesus birth and salvation Mat 1:23
A sign of the divinity of Christ Mat 1:23, also John 1:13 A sign of the sinlessness of Christ Heb 4:15, 1 Pet 2:22, 1 John 3:5, 2 Cor 5:21 A picture of Gods grace John 1:13
The second Adam doctrine 1 Cor 15:47, Rom 5:12
---michael_e on 7/6/17


Cluny,

Its obvious you may not know but your question, "How did the Virgin Mary sin?," This is a RCC Apologetic for the IC Dogma...."

Sir, your given a defense for it...

All I can go on and go by is your own words so if I am wrong remember its understood from your own writing.
---john9346 on 7/4/17


\\You see, your defending this dogma, but earlier you stated that you do not defend it.\\

Wrong again, as in everything you say about me, john.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/4/17


Jerry6593:

I did not say we were, only that the RCC says we were. As IC is a RCC-only doctrine, it makes sense to discuss its own internal consistency totally within the confines of RCC theology, i.e. "Even if we assume RCC theology is totally correct, it must necessarily be internally inconsistent wih regards to IC".
---StrongAxe on 7/4/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


Cluny said, "How did the Virgin Mary sin? Be specific, please."

You see, your defending this dogma, but earlier you stated that you do not defend it.

Your contradicting yourself.
---john9346 on 7/3/17


Cluny, Again, we have the Canonical Word of GOD, in ROMANS 3:23, which you've heard a million times most likely.

That Verse says ALL have sinned and come short of GOD's Glory.

And, this Verse was written AFTER Mary/Miriam was born.

Now, I answered your question, so, you answer me this, Where is it in the Scriptures that states that Mary/Miriam "did not sin"??

I want no speculation of yours or any other's, nor, repeated doctrines of any Church.

I want simply Holy Written Scripture for the answer.
---Gordon on 7/3/17


ax: We Protestants do not agree that we were born with the guilt of sin from our parents, but rather with a sinful or carnal nature - the propensity or tendency to sin. And ALL of us (with the singular exception of Christ) have succumbed to that nature at some point in our lives - Mary included. The Bible does not say that Mary was sinless. It only says that about Jesus.


---Jerry6593 on 7/3/17


Cluny:

You wrote: How did the Virgin Mary sin? Be specific, please.

The same way every other human being descended from Adam has done - it is inherited taint. The Catholics call this Original Sin.
---StrongAxe on 7/2/17


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


\\Well, Mary/Miriam was also as the rest of the human race in that she had sinned and came short of the Glory of GOD.\\

How did the Virgin Mary sin? Be specific, please.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/1/17


Gordon, great post. Just as so many were chosen vessels re: Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Moses, David, etc. they were by no means themselves sinless...however they were considered faithful and just in Gods eyes. Gosh, God chose Noah and his family above all others to live and replenish the earth after destroying hundreds of millions of people. God chose Jacob to start a Nation of His own.

David was the apple of Gods eye. All men born in sin. Yet all had faith. And as we see Mary's family and cousin Elizabeth were all faithful to the Lord.
---kathr4453 on 7/1/17


Gordon: Excellent! Well said!
---Jerry6593 on 7/1/17


Does the Immaculate Conception mean that Mary/Miriam the Earthly mother of YAHUSHUA/JESUS, was born without sin, so that she could carry the Christ Child in the womb of a "clean and pure body"?

Well, Mary/Miriam was also as the rest of the human race in that she had sinned and came short of the Glory of GOD.

What set her apart from the rest is that, at a point in time in her life, she dedicated herself fully to the LORD and walked in holiness and was made a humble, obedient vessel for the LORD's use.

Mary/Miriam understood her need for a personal Saviour and she eventually understood who her Divine Son was and what He came to do for her and for the rest of mankind.

She pleased GOD by her Faith and obedience.
---Gordon on 6/30/17


Send a Free Fourth of July Ecard


Cluny:

You wrote: \\Mary was part of ALL.\\ So is Jesus.

We were discussing "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Do you seriously believe then that Jesus has also sinned and come short of the glory of God?
---StrongAxe on 6/30/17


cluny: "So is Jesus."

Really? So you think Jesus sinned?



ax: You missed the point, as usual.


---Jerry6593 on 6/30/17


I cannot speak directly for Jerry. But mindset does not work to help us live sinless.

The Power of GOD by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. By dying to death and living to love. Those lead us to not live in sin.

We don't have the power the Resurrection power to do anything. Romans 6
---Samuelbb7 on 6/29/17


\\Mary was part of ALL.\\

So is Jesus.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/29/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


Jerry6593:

You wrote: Rom 3:23 For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Mary was part of ALL.

So what? I agree with that, but you weren't talking about Mary. You were talking about Jesus.

Secondly, He gives us ALL the grace (power) to live sinless lives if we would but surrender our lives to Him.

That means that it WOULD be possible for someone other than Jesus to live a sinless life through his own efforts, if he just had the right mind-set. Yet scripture denies this.
---StrongAxe on 6/29/17


ax: "Can you cite chapter and verse to support this position?"

Rom 3:23 For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

Mary was part of ALL.

Jesus was made incarnate by the action of the Holy Spirit (God) on a maiden descended from Adam, and with his sinful propensities. If Jesus had not come as one of us (being capable of temptation), then He could not be our substitute, since He would have conquered sin as God rather than as a man. He was fully man as well as fully God.


"If God gave Jesus alone the grace to live a sinless life"

First, Jesus IS God! Secondly, He gives us ALL the grace (power) to live sinless lives if we would but surrender our lives to Him.

---Jerry6593 on 6/29/17


cluny,

Sir, first, respectfully I wish you would learn to answer questions that are asked of you. This seems to be your pattern...

Here again is my opening statement and question to you:

Cluny,

I find it very disingenuous of you being (Eastern Orthodox) seemly to defend this teaching of which the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't have full agreement of belief on and its development is heretical from EOC View.

How about Theosis, Apophatic Theology, and the denial of Original Sin these are the real teachings if you are really and truly Eastern Orthodox you believe why not defend these doctrines??

---john9346 on 6/28/17


strongaxe said, "People constantly attack Cluny over Catholic straw men he himself doesn't even believe."

Strongaxe, my point exactly then why does he keep arguing for something he doesn't believe? Eastern Orthodox believe this dogma is "Heretical." in development.

In those blogs posted no one asked him or attacked him about the IC he asked others about the dogma.

Its not logical to argue for something you "Don't Believe.", but to defend, argue, only that which you yourself hold deep in conviction...
---john9346 on 6/28/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


\\ Jesus got His sinful nature from His mother. \\

Wrong again, Jerry. Jesus didn't have a sinful nature.

If this is what SDAs believe and teach, then all should receive proper baptism if they become Christians.

john, again I ask you, why do you keep saying I'm defending the doctrine of the IC? Please provide ONE QUOTE where I did so.

If you cannot, I will refuse to defend myself against your straw man any more.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/28/17


Jerry6593:

You wrote: Jesus got His sinful nature from His mother.

Can you cite chapter and verse to support this position?

If God gave Jesus alone the grace to live a sinless life, but never gave anyone else similar help to do so, wouldn't that make him a respecter of persons?


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: But you don't want God to follow His own Words?

I ask for the third time. Why would God's requirement for the vessel to hold a totally sinless Jesus be any different than his requirements for the vessel to hold totally sinless Mary? Why do you play by two different rules?


john9346:

People constantly attack Cluny over Catholic straw men he himself doesn't even believe.
---StrongAxe on 6/28/17


ax: Jesus got His sinful nature from His mother. She was full of grace, but a sinner nonetheless. Jesus is our example as well as our redeemer. He fought the temptations of Satan as we must fight them with "it is written". He set aside His divinity after His incarnation (until His return to heaven) and relied wholly on His Father in order to live a sinless life. Temptation is not sin - giving in to it is sin. So too must we overcome temptation.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.


---Jerry6593 on 6/28/17


StrongAxe, go back to Exodus and read the requirements to build the Ark of the Convent by God.

Perfection for manna, 10 Commandments and Aaron's Rod.

But you don't want God to follow His own Words?

Jesus is the True Manna from Heaven John 6:32-33.

Why would God place His Word in a sinful body?

Mary is the NEW ARK! She carried the True Manna, Word of God and Shepard of His People.

Biblical, only Mary is addressed by Title NOT by name. "Full of Grace" means the Graces are from God. No ones else gives Saving Graces but God.

//not by hand-waving, but because of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus - which had not happened yet.---StrongAxe

Time doesn't control Jesus. He CONTROLS Time.
---Nicole_Lacey on 6/28/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


strongaxe said, "Cluny asks this question because there are so many Protestants who attack straw men of their own devising - i."

Sir, if you read what I ask Cluny I asked him that because as an Eastern Orthodox why is he so seemly obsess with this rcc dogma that the EOC considers heretical in developmental...

As an Eastern Orthodox why doesn't Cluny seek to defend EOC Dogmas instead of a rcc dogma that in labeling in belief is "Heresy." by EOC.

On a prior blog Cluny refused to dialog or defend a real true EOC Teaching "Theosis."

Strongaxe, in honesty do you know what the EOC Believe?
---john9346 on 6/27/17


cluny said, "Actually, this is the first time I've ever asked it. Where did you get the idea I ask it a lot?"

see below:

"Does anyone (except Nicole, Ruben, and Brendan) know what the term "Immaculate Conception" actually means?" Meaning Of Immaculate Conception Blog
---Cluny on 5/30/16




mima, what do you think "Immaculate Conception of the Virgin" means?
---Cluny on 2/25/11

I've noticed that when mima is asked a direct question about he thinks "Immaculate Conception" means, he doesn't answer, but he is quick to say what a great hit man for Jesus he is.
---Cluny on 2/25/11 See, "Four Marian Dogmas Blog."
---john9346 on 6/27/17


Strongax I disagree. We get our nature from Mother and Father.

Now on the nature of Christ. I have my view. But the important point is. That Jesus walked in our shoes. When we are Born Again we get a new nature. That fills us with the Holy Spirit.

Arguing about the nature of Jesus Christ is useless.

What are we doing to spread the gospel, fed the poor and comfort the lonely and sad.

That is important.

In this day when the rich are grinding down the poor. Where do we stand with the rich or with the poor?
---Samuelbb7 on 6/27/17


2 Corinthians 5:21 - For he hath made him to be sin for us,Who knew no sin: that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Mark 10:18 - And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me Good ? There is none good but one that is God,

John 10:30 - I and my Father are One

James 1:13 - Let no man say when he is tempted , I am tempted by God: For God cannot be tempted by evil, neither tempted he any man,
---RichardC on 6/27/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


It is incorrect to assert that Jesus had a sinless nature. His nature was the same as ours..
---Jerry6593 on 6/27/17

Perhaps you dispute that Jesus was God, before the Incarnation?

Jesus was fully God and fully man. Jesus had two different beings within Him, the God-being and the human being.

This is the essence of the theory of Hypostatic union.

The fully God-being of Jesus could not sin. God does not sin nor will He ever sin.

The fully human being of Jesus could be tempted, could be hurt, could thirst, could hunger, and could feel depressed. But as you have quoted, He was tempted yet without sin.

Therefore, Jesus must have surrendered His human being to the control of His God-being.
---Mark_Eaton on 6/27/17


Jerry6593:

You wrote: It is incorrect to assert that Jesus had a sinless nature. His nature was the same as ours, the nature of Adam after the fall.

Not true. We inherit our sin nature from Adam, through our fathers. Jesus, unlike the rest of us, did NOT have a human father, so he did not inherit Adam's sin nature. This is why he, and he alone, was able to resist sin.

1 John 2:1 is just an exhortation to avoid sin, not a claim that it is possible, as it also includes instructions for what to do if one DOES sin.

1 John 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1 John 1:10: If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
---StrongAxe on 6/27/17


It is incorrect to assert that Jesus had a sinless nature. His nature was the same as ours, the nature of Adam after the fall. He was tempted to sin, but DID NOT SIN.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:


---Jerry6593 on 6/27/17


Luke 1:42 - And she spake out with a loud voice, and said , Blessed art thou among women, , and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,

Romans 4:7 - Blessed are they whose antiquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered,
---RichardC on 6/26/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


It means "totally graced up", or more elegantly, "full of grace".
---Cluny on 6/26/17

This is what I know. The Apostles Peter, John, Paul, and the author of Hebrews all state and agree that Jesus is sinless and that Jesus lived a sinless life.

However, nowhere in anyone's Canon of Scripture does it state that Mary was sinless.

All the hoopla over IC is because whoever developed the doctrine of Original Sin needed this behind the back jig to explain how Jesus did not get "infected".

Why not start with the Trinity? Jesus has a sinless nature because He pre-existed as God. When Jesus took on the human Being, he did not take on a sinful nature. He already had a sinless nature as God.
---Mark_Eaton on 6/26/17


Nicole_Lacey:

But, Jesus was NEVER created. He needed a CLEAN VESSEL to thrive.

Why would a sinless Jesus need a clean vessel to thrive, yet a sinless Mary would not? Why are you playing by two different sets of rules?

Mary was INFUSED with an abundance of God's Graces to prevent any sin. That's Scripture! She is addressed by title NOT by name.

No, it isn't. Did she receive God's grace? Yes. But there is no scripture that says she was without sin, nor that she was saved from sin at conception.

Why does God Save one at 10 years old and another at 54 yrs old?

God saves us from sin, not by hand-waving, but because of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus - which had not happened yet.
---StrongAxe on 6/26/17


\\I believe it is after, because the Greek word used in Gabriel's statement you have translated as "Full of grace" is 'charitoo\\

Actually the Greek word here is KEChARITOMENI, which is one of the past tenses of the verb you cited.

It means "totally graced up", or more elegantly, "full of grace". Rendering the single Greek word to include 'favor" is one of the places where the KJV fudged the translation.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/26/17


Mary was blessed with more of God's Graces than you or I.
---Nicole_Lacey on 6/24/17

First, Adam was not conceived. Adam was formed from dust.

Second, is Mary blessed with more grace before or after the Incarnation? If before, you are making God a respecter of persons.

I believe it is after, because the Greek word used in Gabriel's statement you have translated as "Full of grace" is 'charitoo" which means "to endow with grace" or "to cause to find favor" which I believe God is doing to Mary during the Incarnation.

Mary is favored above all women in that she will give birth to Jesus and endowed with the grace needed to raise the Son of God.
---Mark_Eaton on 6/26/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


Strongaxe, we are all created differently. Adam from dirt. Eve from a rib bone and us from a tiny sperm into a tiny egg.

God still breaths His life into us forming our souls.

But, Jesus was NEVER created. He needed a CLEAN VESSEL to thrive.

IC explains Mary's Salvation.

Mary was INFUSED with an abundance of God's Graces to prevent any sin. That's Scripture! She is addressed by title NOT by name.

Not created sinless, but SAVED from sin at conception.

//yet be all too willing to make that exception in Mary's case?---StrongAxe

Why does God Save one at 10 years old and another at 54 yrs old?

When can answer that question you will answer your own question at the same time.
---Nicole_Lacey on 6/25/17


Nicole_Lacey:

Adam was not conceived or born sinless. He wasn not conceived or born at all. He was created ex nihilo.

If God's graces were sufficient to create Mary sinless, despite the fact that she inherited sin from her parents, it would also have been sufficient to create Jesus sinless, despite the sin of HIS parents.

The whole reason Jesus's sacrifice was even NECESSARY was because God was unwilling to just hand-wave sin away without an atonement. Why would he be unwilling or unable to do so for the world, yet be all too willing to make that exception in Mary's case?
---StrongAxe on 6/24/17


\\Both of these quote Augustine saying unbaptized babies go direct to hell.\\

And they are both wrong.

FWIW, Limbo--in particular the Limbus Infantium--has never been de fide in RCC, and Orthodoxy never accepted it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/24/17


//making Jesus the first sinless conception, not Mary.//

Neither were first but Adam.

//what exactly does the title "Full of Grace" mean? I certainly do not see that it means "sinless".//

Why not? God's Graces isn't sufficient to make Mary sinless?

//Mary had no grace of her own.//

Who claims that? Not Gabriel.

//means "Full of God's Grace" or "Highly Favored". Nothing more.---Mark_Eaton

I think Gabriel knows that, he knows God's Graces are powerful enough to keep one from sinning.

Do you believe you haven't kill someone due to you and not by God's Graces?

Gabriel is just stating facts. Mary was blessed with more of God's Graces than you or I.
---Nicole_Lacey on 6/24/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


]]You wrote: I know of nobody who worships Mary with the LATREIA given to the Lord. What's more, I don't think you do, either.

Have you ever visited any Latin American countries? It's very common there]]

Have you StrongAxe? I know that I cannot see into other people's hearts and know their real motivations. Can you in such a delicate matter as this?

Most Roman Catholics will admit that there has been a lot of bad catechesis.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/24/17


"Wrong again, Samuel. Here is what St. Augustine actually said about unbaptized babies:

**, "such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all.**

In other words, limbo.... Cluny on 6/21/17"

Purgatory and Limbo was not around until after the death of Augustine.

See Pelagius: Life and Letters Apr 30, 2004
by Pelagius and B.R. Rees

And An Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism. From the Original sources. by G. F. Wiggers.

Both of these quote Augustine saying unbaptized babies go direct to hell.

It was part of the argument they were having.
---Samuelbb7 on 6/24/17


Cluny:

You wrote: I know of nobody who worships Mary with the LATREIA given to the Lord. What's more, I don't think you do, either.

Have you ever visited any Latin American countries? It's very common there.

If that is happening with anyone, it's DESPITE the teaching of the Church, not because of it.

There are many doctrinal errors believed by many Catholics, that the Church claims are not its official doctrines. If such errors are so prevalent, it's the Church's own fault for allowing such misconceptions to be taught by its own misinformed clergy, and for not correcting parishoners who believe them.
---StrongAxe on 6/24/17


\\nor it there any reason to worship Mary as we do with Jesus. And that is the problem I see with this.\\

I know of nobody who worships Mary with the LATREIA given to the Lord. What's more, I don't think you do, either.

If that is happening with anyone, it's DESPITE the teaching of the Church, not because of it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/23/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


I simply cannot see the necessity of Mary being sinless in order to bear the Christ child. In any case, there is no scriptural basis for it, nor it there any reason to worship Mary as we do with Jesus. And that is the problem I see with this.
---Riolion on 6/22/17


Nicole_Lacey:

Why was that necessary? If so, wouldn't it also have been necessary for Mary's MOTHER to also be free of sin for Mary to dwell in HER womb?

Why couldn't the Trinity similarly prevent the stain of sin to sin Jesus's soul at the very moment HE was conceived? Why do different metaphysics apply to sinless Jesus than to sinless Mary?

Eve was conceived without sin, but she was later stained by sin - otherwise, she wouldn't have been cursed and cast out of Eden.
---StrongAxe on 6/22/17


\\Sir, it just a simple question I'm just trying to understand this from your Point of view as an Eastern Orthodox since you ask it a lot.\\

Actually, this is the first time I've ever asked it. Where did you get the idea I ask it a lot?

BTW, it was NOT St. Augustine who first posited IC, but his contemporary, the heresiarch Pelegius.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/22/17


No, the Trinity prevented the stain of sin to seal Mary's soul at the very MOMENT she was conceive.
---Nicole_Lacey on 6/22/17

What you are saying makes more sense if it applied to Jesus, not Mary.

If the Holy Spirit, not involved in the conception of Mary, will do this for Mary, it is more reasonable to think that the Holy Spirit, involved in the conception of Jesus, would do this for Jesus, making Jesus the first sinless conception, not Mary.

Also, what exactly does the title "Full of Grace" mean? I certainly do not see that it means "sinless". Mary had no grace of her own. It means "Full of God's Grace" or "Highly Favored". Nothing more.
---Mark_Eaton on 6/22/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


//If this is possible, then there would have been no need for Mary to be sinless.//

Remember, Mary's title is FULL OF GRACE proclaimed by the Archangel Gabriel because she still needed to be free of sin for Jesus to dwell in her womb.

The Holy of Holies (Ark of the Covenant dwelling place) was the holiest place in the world.

Shouldn't Jesus' 9 months of life have anything less?

//Mary would ALSO have had to have been conceived by another sinless mother,//

No, the Trinity prevented the stain of sin to seal Mary's soul at the very MOMENT she was conceive.

//Eve was NOT sinless,--StrongAxe

Eve was conceived without sin but she wasn't infused with the same amount of abundance of Grace as Mary.
---Nicole_Lacey on 6/22/17


john9346:

Cluny asks this question because there are so many Protestants who attack straw men of their own devising - i.e. they take a doctrine, misinterpret it, and create a totally different doctrine that is ridiculous. They then attack it because it's ridiculous, and when they've successfully proven that it's ridiculous, they think they have debunked the original doctrine, when all they have done is demolished their own straw man.

If anyone is going to debunk something, they should know exactly what it is they are debunking first. Otherwise, their effort is meaningless. If Saudi Arabia attacks you, it isn't terribly effective to retaliate by bombing Iraq (regardless of the fact that it's already been tried).
---StrongAxe on 6/21/17


Cluny said, "You still don't get that I'm asking PROTESTANTS what they think it means."

Sir, it just a simple question I'm just trying to understand this from your Point of view as an Eastern Orthodox since you ask it a lot.

Its just ironic to ask about a dogma so much that your religion views as frenging on "Heresy." Its more ironic that you are not the ones who invented it, but oppose it...

I'll respect the fact that you don't want to answer.

Thanks,

John
---john9346 on 6/21/17


]]Augustine was the great defender of this. ]]

IC didn't become an issue until a thousand years after Augustine.

\\He stated that unbaptized babies went to eternal hell. ]]

Wrong again, Samuel. Here is what St. Augustine actually said about unbaptized babies:

**, "such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all.**

In other words, limbo. Such babies, he proposed, are in a state of natural happiness, but are deprived of the Vision of God.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/21/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


Nicole_Lacey:

This is one thing that I could never understand about IC that seems to defy all logic.

The fundamental question is this. Is it possible for God to concieve a sinless child from a sinful mother? If this is possible, then there would have been no need for Mary to be sinless. If it is not possible, then Jesus would have had to be conceived by a sinless Mary (IC). However, by the very same reasoninig, Mary would ALSO have had to have been conceived by another sinless mother, and so on, back to the first mother (Eve). But Eve was NOT sinless, which results in a contradiction. Thus, the very logic, that demands IC, contradicts itself, and without it, it's no more than unsubstantiated theological hand-waving.
---StrongAxe on 6/21/17


Cluny, they reposted my statement from the past.

I made that statement but it was a while ago.
---Nicole_Lacey on 6/21/17


\\Now tell me, as an Eastern Orthodox what is your clear def of this RCC Dogma?\\

You still don't get that I'm asking PROTESTANTS what they think it means.

||Were you RCC before converting to EOC?
---john9346 on 6/19/17\\

Nope.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/20/17


Thank you Nicole.

That is the definition we need to understand.

I disagree that it is true.

I do respect Mary. But I don't adore her.

GOD is love.
---Samuelbb7 on 6/20/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


Gentlemen, IC means at the moment she was conceived from her father's sperm into her mother's egg, (Jesus'only grandparents) The Holy Spirit infused her with overabundance of God's Grace.

Saving her from original sin.
Why?
Because Jesus is an obedient Jew that needed an undefile Body to sacrifice for you and I.

God Saved her at her conception. That's why She alone is addressed by title by an angel not name. No else in the Bible. Go head and verify it.

Jesus follows God's commands.
since Mary body is only body Jesus will partake, it has to conceived without sin as Adam and Eve.
---Nicole_Lacey on 6/19/17


Seems the discussion started before the defining.

The Doctrine of Immaculate Conception is that Mary was born without sin. Because all who are born are guilty of sin at birth. Referred to as Original sin. If Memory serves me. Augustine was the great defender of this.

He stated that unbaptized babies went to eternal hell.

I am always finding things to like about the Orthodox churches.

Thank you for your points Cluny.

Agape
---Samuelbb7 on 6/19/17


Cluny,

First, lets dialog like men and not be condescending ok?

Now tell me, as an Eastern Orthodox what is your clear def of this RCC Dogma?

Were you RCC before converting to EOC?
---john9346 on 6/19/17


\\Because how many times you ask this question and when those state their disapproval and why you will attack there position sounds like a defense. \\

Remember that the way things sound to you may not be reality.

It is one thing to disapprove of the doctrine of the IC. It's quite another to condemn something that doctrine does NOT say.

Do you get it, john?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/18/17


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


cluny:

"Where did you get the idea that I was defending it?"

Because how many times you ask this question and when those state their disapproval and why you will attack there position sounds like a defense.

"Do you what the doctrine actually says?"

I do and I have answered your question prior now tell me why are you an "Eastern Orthodox." so concern with this RCC Dogma that its development Eastern Orthodox find "Heretical."
---john9346 on 6/17/17


"The Orthodox Church calls Mary all-holy, immaculate, free from actual sin. The Orthodox Church has never made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter of the Immaculate Conception. In the past, individual Orthodox theologians have made statements that, if not definitively affirming the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception, at any rate closely approach it. But since 1854, the great majority of Orthodox reject it as necessary, as implying a false understanding of original sin,"

The Orthodox Church, Timothy Ware Pg 259-260
---john9346 on 6/17/17


\\I find it very disingenuous of you being (Eastern Orthodox) seemly to defend this teaching...\\

Where did you get the idea that I was defending it?

I'm simply asking if people know what it really says. Can you grasp the difference between what I say and of what you're accusing me?

Do you what the doctrine actually says? If so, please answer.

If you don't know, admit it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/17/17


Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.