Replies

It is an abuse of Scripture to cite a verse to answer a question that the author was not discussing. There are many passages in the New Testament that speak of God's desire to save all men, and of the power of the Christ's blood to save all men. To cite those passages as though they nullify the words of Jesus ("Whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.") is to ABUSE those passages. The authors were not discussing the Sacrament of Penance, or the need to confess sins, or the power to forgive or retain sins. They were discussing the overarching desire of the Father and the power of Christ to save all men. Abusing a passage of Scripture, pretending it answers a question that the author was not discussing, is something like those editors at "Sixty Minutes," who take a question from the interviewer, and splice it to an answer that was given TO A DIFFERENT QUESTION. Those who deny the sinlessness of Mary cite "All have sinned..." as "proof" that Mary sinned. But St. Paul was not discussing Mary at the point. He was addressing an audience--ALL OF WHOM WERE SINNERS. He wasn't discussing the exceptions--such as unborn babies, or newborn babies, or the retarded--or Mary. The passage "All have sinned..." does NOT mean that all unborn babies have sinned, or that newborn babies have sinned, or that the retarded have sinned, or that Mary sinned. They were not under discussion. How could it be a GOOD thing to "retain" sins? Some decades ago, a teenage boy confessed that he was having intercourse with his girlfriend. I said, "That's a serious sin. Do you intend to stop?" "No," he said. I told him I was unable to give him absolution. Now, if there were no Sacrament of Penance, or Confession, this young person could easily engage in self-deception, as millions of people do who claim "I can confess my sins directly to Jesus." But, as it was, there was an audible human voice there to tell him the truth: Namely, that he was engaged in grave sin, and that he could not be forgiven unless he intended to stop. As you can see, there is NO CONTRADICTION between "retaining sins" and the desire of God to save all men. Men cannot be saved without repentance. It is a BENEFIT when they hear this truth spoken aloud by an objective observer.

The Roman Catholic complaining about the abuse of Scriptures is comical.

Those who deny the sinlessness of Mary cite "All have sinned..." as "proof" that Mary sinned. But St. Paul was not discussing Mary at the point. He was addressing an audience--ALL OF WHOM WERE SINNERS. He wasn't discussing the exceptions--such as unborn babies, or newborn babies, or the retarded--or Mary. The passage "All have sinned..." does NOT mean that all unborn babies have sinned, or that newborn babies have sinned, or that the retarded have sinned, or that Mary sinned.

The Greek used in Romans 3:23 does indicate that all have sinned....with all meaning just that....ALL. Each and everyone of us have sinned.

We're not born with a clean slate and start racking up sin points.

Further, regarding Mary, Roman Catholicism's own Catholic Encyclopedia online admits, "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture."

It further admits the Roman Catholic understanding of Genesis 3:15 is based on a flawed rendering of the passage in the Vulgate and was not known prior to the 4th century.

"The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically."

The CE even admits the ECFs are not in agreement on this issue.

These include Origen, St. Basil and St. Chrysostom.

It further admits the "feast of the Immaculate Conception" is a late development.

"The older feast of the Conception of Mary (Conception of St. Anne), which originated in the monasteries of Palestine at least as early as the seventh century, and the modern feast of the Immaculate Conception are not identical in their object."

How did it become ingrained in Roman Catholicism? As Roman Catholics do with so many things....through force:

"By a Decree of 28 February, 1476, Sixtus IV at last adopted the feast for the entire Latin Church and granted an indulgence to all who would assist at the Divine Offices of the solemnity (Denzinger, 734). The Office adopted by Sixtus IV was composed by Leonard de Nogarolis, whilst the Franciscans, since 1480, used a very beautiful Office from the pen of Bernardine dei Busti (Sicut Lilium), which was granted also to others (e.g. to Spain, 1761), and was chanted by the Franciscans up to the second half of the nineteenth century. As the public acknowledgment of the feast of Sixtus IV did not prove sufficient to appease the conflict, he published in 1483 a constitution in which he punished with excommunication all those of either opinion who charged the opposite opinion with heresy (Grave nimis, 4 Sept., 1483; Denzinger, 735)."

" Whilst these disputes went on, the great universities and almost all the great orders had become so many bulwarks for the defense of the dogma. In 1497 the University of Paris decreed that henceforward no one should be admitted a member of the university, who did not swear that he would do the utmost to defend and assert the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Toulouse followed the example; in Italy, Bologna and Naples; in the German Empire, Cologne, Maine, and Vienna; in Belgium, Louvain; in England before the Reformation. Oxford and Cambridge; in Spain Salamanca, Toledo, Seville, and Valencia; in Portugal, Coimbra and Evora; in America, Mexico and Lima. The Friars Minor confirmed in 1621 the election of the Immaculate Mother as patron of the order, and bound themselves by oath to teach the mystery in public and in private. The Dominicans, however, were under special obligation to follow the doctrines of St. Thomas, and the common conclusion was that St. Thomas was opposed to the Immaculate Conception. Therefore the Dominicans asserted that the doctrine was an error against faith (John of Montesono, 1373); although they adopted the feast, they termed it persistently "Sanctificatio B.M.V." not "Conceptio", until in 1622 Gregory XV abolished the term "sanctificatio". Paul V (1617) decreed that no one should dare to teach publicly that Mary was conceived in original sin, and Gregory XV (1622) imposed absolute silence (in scriptis et sermonibus etiam privatis) upon the adversaries of the doctrine until the Holy See should define the question. To put an end to all further cavilling, Alexander VII promulgated on 8 December 1661, the famous constitution "Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum", defining the true sense of the word conceptio, and forbidding all further discussion against the common and pious sentiment of the Church. He declared that the immunity of Mary from original sin in the first moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into the body was the object of the feast (Denzinger, 1100)."

As this illustrates, the "very clear dogma" of the "Immaculate Conception" is:

a) not supported by Scripture nor found in Scripture

b) not supported by the ECFs

c) was not supported by the various feasts

d) came about through coercion within Roman Catholicism