Essays for Lent: Papal Infallibility

“A feast of the Conception of the Most Holy and All Pure Mother of God was celebrated in Syria on 9 December perhaps as early as the 5th century. Note that the title of achrantos (spotless, immaculate, all-pure) refers to the holiness of Mary, not specifically to the holiness of her conception. By the 7th century the feast of her conception was widely celebrated in the East, under the name of the Conception (active) of Saint Anne....

Wiki (links at source)”

There was no such cult of Mary in existence during the first few hundred years following Christ’s resurrection. Mary, who is supposedly without a sin nature and perpetually a virgin, a being so great she can hear the millions of Rosary prayers around the world, and can save people through devotion of her immaculate heart, is hardly mentioned in the Bible. In the Old Testament prophecies, she is a virgin who would give birth to “God with us.” There is no mention of any Catholic doctrine regarding Mary anywhere in the Bible. For one so important, why is there such extreme silence about her? And how can anyone ever be born without a sin nature, despite the scripture that teaches that even the best Saints are wicked in the sight of God? There is no contemporary historical accounts relating the assumption of Mary or the idea that Mary was perpetually a virgin or without sin. All that we do have originates from fraudulent works attributed to people who did not write them or other sources that read like ridiculous fairy tales, and to which the Catholics justify through “it seems like it should be true, so it is.” Tertullian denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, and other Catholic dogmas only came up little by little over the next few hundred years. The only thing perpetual has been the perpetual addition of Mariology to the church, which is so altogether fleshy that it makes a mockery of all Christianity.

All that presented garbage is revised phony history from one of slanted bias websites. This is not real history of the church. It is the same vein as some write about the revised holocaust history. Just amazing we can find what we want because we want to believe a certain way.

"All" that was presented in my post is "garbage"? Really? Did you take note that two of the references came from Catholic historians (Paul Johnson) including one who was a priest? His name was Father Raymond Brown and the document he wrote was given a nihil obstat AND an Imprimatur. So, when he or Johnson speak of the historical evidence that proves Peter and Paul did NOT found the Church of Rome, that Peter did NOT stay there as Pope for 25 years or that the lists of "Apostolic Succession" generated by a few of the Early Church Fathers, i.e., Eusebius and Irenaeus, then they certainly have no "axe to grind" nor should they feel the need to confect their own history since these facts were also known to many others. They have endorsements from the Catholic Church.

This brings up why, when we attempt to discuss things that may or may not have happened thousands of years ago, we find ourselves at loggerheads because we come at it from two different viewpoints. This site http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/02/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and.html does a good job of explaining why this can be like pulling teeth:

The same phenomenon occurs when it comes to discussing historical evidence for and against the claims of Rome. A person who believes that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has special divine authority naturally looks at evidence for the claims of Rome in a much different way than a person who does not believe that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has divine authority. If a person firmly believes that the Roman Magisterium is infallible (i.e. incapable of error) under certain conditions; in short, if that is his basic theological axiom, then by definition he cannot at the same time believe that there is any real evidence of error. This is the reason that for faithful Roman Catholics, the very possibility of there being evidence contradicting the claims of the Roman Church is non-existent. Any alleged evidence of error offered by Protestants or others must be explainable in some other way.

Those who do not begin with the basic theological axiom of Roman Catholicism see abundant evidence against the claims of Rome in Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the documented events of church history. This evidence prevents them from believing that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has divine authority. For those who adopt the basic theological axiom of Roman Catholicism, all of this “alleged” evidence essentially ceases to exist. From the perspective of the non-Roman Catholic, the Roman Catholic is doing something comparable to reading a red-letter Bible with red tinted glasses. If he sets aside the glasses, he can see all the words printed in red. If he puts the glasses on, all the words printed in red disappear from his sight. From the Roman Catholic perspective, it is non-Roman Catholics who are reading the evidence with a distorted lens.

To be fair, Roman Catholics are not alone in dealing with this kind of criticism. All of those who believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture are criticized in a similar way by liberals and skeptics who say they have found abundant evidence of error in Scripture. If a person truly believes that the Scriptures are the inerrant Word of God, he cannot at the same time believe that there is any real evidence of error in the Scriptures. He trusts that there is an explanation for any apparent errors, even if he does not know what that explanation is. In the same way, a Roman Catholic who truly believes in the infallibility of the Magisterium will trust that there is an explanation for any alleged errors presented by non-Roman Catholics.

So, knowing that none of us is completely objective, how do we deal with the claims of Rome? Rome claims special divine authority and infallibility. Rome claims to be the one Church Christ founded on earth. Rome claims that those who are not in communion with the Pope are schismatics. These are very big and very consequential claims. When faced with such claims, one does not simply make a blind leap of faith one way or the other. One needs to know whether the claims are true before making any kind of commitment. Why? Because if an institution is making those kinds of claims and they are false, one would be committing oneself to a lie of monumental proportions. On the other hand, if the claims are true, rejecting them is equally serious.

I submit that the claims of Rome do not stand up to close scrutiny when measured by any standard other than Rome herself. While the claims of Rome have a theoretical plausibility when considered alone, that plausibility evaporates when we evaluate the evidence for and against those claims. At issue, then, is the truth or falsity of the premise regarding the special divine authority of the Roman Catholic Church. If that premise is granted, many of the remaining claims of Rome follow. The problem, however, is that there is abundant evidence from Scripture, tradition, and history that renders the truthfulness of the basic premise entirely implausible. In other words, while Rome’s arguments using this premise may be logically valid, none of them are sound because the key premise is false.

I sincerely hope you will go to the site and read the entire article. My intent is NOT to sow discord but to speak the truth in love the best way I can. I fully understand that not everyone will accept it, but, perhaps, there are a few who will and will find rest for their souls in the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ which is salvation by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

What you write is typical Protestant pap, that has nothing to do with papal infallibility. The question is not what you happen to think or, rather, what your semi-educated pastor happens to think about Mary the Mother of God, but what papal infallibility is or isn't. More specifically you asked about the late marian dogmas, and I explained that they are late in proclamation but not in actual belief.

Let me now briefly -- since this is not the topic, -- comment on your objections to the veneration of Mary.

The premise that she is "is hardly mentioned in the Bible" is wrong. Regarding the Old Testament, you forget the mini-gospel of Genesis 3:15 where the prophecy is made that the seed of a woman will crush Satan. Since women have no seed, and no one but Jesus her Son crushed Satan, that woman would be Mary. In the New Testament she is the central character of two Gospel chapters Luke 1-2, she appears with Jesus throughout His ministry, where Jesus gives her keeping the Word as an example to others (Luke 11:27-28) who already venerate her. She is alone with John at the foot of the Cross, where she is told to adopt John and through him, the entire Church as her children (John 19:26-27). That request of dying Christ was of course fulfilled as in Revelation of John (chapter 12) we see her engaged in combat with Satan together with her children "who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Apoc. 12:17). In the Upper Room as the Holy Spirit enters the Catholic Chruch -- she is there also with the Holy Apostles (Acts 1:14, then see Acts 2:1-4). Aside from Jesus Himself and possibly St. Peter our First Pope, she is the most prominent figure of the Gospels. you should try reading the Holy Scripture every now and then, not just repeat Protestant propaganda.

The icons of Mary appear as soon as there are icons.

Nativity scene

The catacombs of Saint Priscilla
2 A.D., Rome

(link).

So on "here was no such cult of Mary in existence during the first few hundred years following Christ’s resurrection", your statement seems lacking in education as well.

You don't have a concept of sin and sainthood right. Saints are people who overcome their sinful nature and become united to Christ in the course of their lives. When they are saints, they are no longer "wicked"; they overcome sin. Mary is a saint who attained sainthood at conception ("hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women", Archangel Gabriel called her in Luke 1:28).

Finally, please get a clue regarding the operation of the Catholic Church. In the Protestant world, there are teaching of men that are proclaimed out of their own head and then they become what the Protestant pastors teach. So Lutehr invented Bible Alone and Faith Alone, Calvin invented limited atonement and total depravity of man, and bingo, Protestant pastors, like cockroaches, crawl off to repeat their lies. The Church of God does not operate that way. The dogmata of the Church are forever in the deposit of faith given the Apostles by Christ ("the faith once delivered to the saints" Jude 1:3). The dogmata of the Church are proclaimed when, with the passage of time, a controversy arises and a need emerges to clarify the Deposit of Faith. The dogmata do not alter the faith, they sustain it in purity and protect the doctrines of Christ from ravings of heretics.

I invite your brief questions since this might be a lot to digest for you, but I will not respond to another silly screed off-topic.

I posted to you it was taken out.

What I was stating among other things is that Raymond Brown has liberal theology leanings. I do not even understand how he is a priest. These sites that are mentioned are presenting third party sources. The thing we have to do is really read the books that are mentioned on these sites. I have read their source materials and found twisting of words. Especially of the early Church fathers writings.

The early church writings about Peter and Paul does not conclusively state that Paul had last say. All it was stating that churches were founded by both. I read this document outside of this site. The site takes the liberty to take sentences out of context. Then put in whatever to their view it seems without a doubt.

Read the original source material not third party minimal quotes from site.

I just read the article

His writings declare no succession. Gee I wonder why and when they ignore something like this in their writing.

What in the world is this:

Augustine of Hippo:

Letter 53 (A.D. 400) For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!”

The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: — Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius..

Notice “successor of Peter”.

In all that Glop of words on that site. Not once did I read this successer of Peter By Augustine!!

How convient!

Its what they do not show that is astonishing!

Please! amazing! Go to original sources.