James Cone’s Children, Then In-Depth on the Immaculate Conception

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line today. We wanted to get another program in this week

That makes four for one week Just letting you know yesterday's program is now up.

It had been blocked globally by the algorithm on both YouTube and Facebook Due to the fact that we played music and it's understandable.

It's natural. I actually John Cooper's Folks that take care of that kind of thing got in touch to me.

They got it taken care of fairly quickly I think we're still on Facebook still blocked on that one, but it'll eventually be there as well

And I did ask them I said in the future. Is there a way we can sort of preemptively

Get around this and they seem to feel like they're in the future if we sort of planned it We might might be able to get around it.

We'll see but it's hey, it's it's for skillets protection I mean, there are lots of people that would just live screen live stream everything for free if they could get hold of it and That's sort of the end of everybody's ability to produce stuff so I get it, but The interview with John Cooper is now up and available from yesterday.

I appreciate all the positive feedback We got from that everybody seemed to enjoy it, especially Daryl Harrison In Omaha at Just Thinking, Virgil Walker They seemed to really enjoy the fact that John was wearing their hat and I I guess we need a hat now, so If we if we make it out and make a hat again, we've had them in the past.

I mean decades That's true. That's true. So we'll have to you know, have a hat some hats maiden and Send you'll send send one off to John and Then he'll then he can do the

Just Thinking podcast wearing our hat. That seems to be that seems to be fair I think anyways, but yeah, anyway

Start off we're gonna be talking about the Immaculate Conception today If you have Roman Catholic friends and family and things like that, this will be one that you're gonna want to really tune in on But before that I want to talk about The Dr.

Raphael Gamaliel Warnock Portion of the

Lewis funeral yesterday Dr. Warnock is

The senior pastor of the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church the spiritual home of the Reverend. Dr.

Martin Luther King jr. And Dr. Warnock appeared

At the funeral yesterday and he made a huge splash by one particular portion of what he said

Now you need to understand that If you understand black liberation theology if you understand

James Cone if you understand Union Theological Seminary This is what you would expect

This is but but what is what it is is it has caught people Because I've sat how many hours have

I sat here in this very studio. In fact, I remember the first time I did this We weren't doing video the walls were white there was a for years, we had a bookcase in that corner that was a

Prototype for my real bookcases and it was just propped up in the corner could have fallen over at any second

It was I was tilted. It was terrible, but we didn't have video. So who cared?

But I remember in 2008 Sitting in this room and reading from James Cone So it's been at least 12 years

That we have been speaking about James Cone who passed away. I believe was last year the year before last and Black liberation theology and The concepts associated thereto and basically saying this is not

Christianity it it utilizes Christian language but it is a fundamentally different concept than the historic

Christian faith and This is what is taught at Union Theological Seminary If you've not followed a lot of my tweets and things like that Union I call

Union Theological Seminary the Walker Seminary it it apostatized before the year 1900 and yet it's still going so it's it's like It'd be like if We were on the 200 season of the

Walking Dead now I've I've I stopped walking. I started stopped walking. I stopped I stopped walking as a

Walker I stopped watching The Walking Dead quite some time ago, but it always crossed my mind

Shouldn't the walkers be looking worse and worse with each passing You know,

I mean They do Well, there can't be anything I'm left by now. I Mean that there must be like just body parts

I'll just laying around all over the place because everything was falling off as it was So that's that's

Union Theological Seminary But it keeps moving. It's it's still rattling around.

It's nothing but a skeleton, but it keeps rattling around. Well, he's graduate of of Union and Cone taught at Union and that makes perfect sense.

You can teach anything Union. There's doctrine The only doctrine at Union Theological Seminary is that the one doctrine you can't believe is what historic

Christianity has ever believed That's that's about the only doctrinal standard at Union Theological Seminary so at the funeral this guy starts talking and as you'll see he takes

Isaiah 53 and Applies it to congressman Lewis Instead of to Jesus and People are

First of all, there's been a number of people's that Nah, he probably wasn't. No, he didn't do that.

And no he did it's it's plain obvious There's no question. Don't even try to get around it is exactly what he did and It is perfectly consistent perfectly consistent with black liberation theology

How does James Cone say that God is black that Jesus was black

That we are that you are to try to Black people to rejoice in their blackness so on so forth.

It's not just a skin color though. It's never completely disconnected from that for Cone God is the

God of the sufferers. He is the God of the oppressed and And so You are like Jesus when you were oppressed

Congressman Lewis was beaten and was oppressed therefore Congressman Lewis is like Jesus and therefore

By his stripes America is healed. So it it follows logically if you understand the

Wildly and grossly racist and unbiblical categories of James Cone and his now extremely popular influential offspring throughout the black religious community

Makes it makes perfect sense what he was saying and why he said it but the vast majority of us still

It's still you know just grabs you and you just go what um

Seriously But it's consistent with with Cone So let's just take a look at it.

This is so this is really low resolution. This is gonna look bad Unless you like keep it down the bottom or something like that but Here's here's the section that got everybody all in a tizzy and appropriately

So I'm not saying I'm not saying there's an excuse for this. I'm just simply explaining to you

That there's a background to this. It's not like you decide. It doesn't sound good I think this I'll throw out some just rank horrific offensive heresy.

No, this is this is black liberation theology. This is James Cone So here we go And by his stripes

We are healed So let's remember him today and let's recommit tomorrow to standing together and fighting together and voting together and So there you have by his stripes we are healed because he was oppressed and And God is the god of the oppressed and only the god of the oppressed

So if he was oppressed then we can apply this passage him it It is the religion of wokeness

It should cause us to just stop and go oh my goodness, how could anyone do that?

and the number of people it is Astonishing how many people are

Defending what he had to say Defending what is it? By the way? I'm likely watching Twitter today at all because the net is bad

I don't know. I do not understand how this works yesterday. We went for an hour and 15 minutes John Cooper and flawless just Well, I guess there was one slight dropout one, but we did great and we had the zoom stuff going and today

It's it's a roller coaster all over the place and we've already done all the resetting that we can and so that sunspots aliens

I Have no idea, but that's extremely distracting to me to know that we're on we're off we're on we're off and and so I won't be watching

Twitter because that way I won't know and we'll just have to upload this when we get a chance to upload it and you know, so Anyway, just wanted to comment upon that because a lot of people were talking about it

You know, I just straightforward said this is blasphemous it is but you're not allowed to say that Blasphemy itself can is now a protected form of speech as long as it is racially appropriate blasphemy

That's where we are. That's that's where we are and It will not be long before YouTube and Facebook and Instagram and Twitter are enforcing those

Theological standards upon the rest of us You you

I hopefully by now You've realized that the stuff that you thought was tin hat stuff for me.

You're now experiencing yourself so it wasn't tin hat stuff to begin with and that's coming for us as well, so Again, while it is day let us work for the night is coming when no man can work and that is a biblical truth and biblical reality

Okay, so I Wanted To do something it's been

I think a Decade Since I did my last debate on The Immaculate Conception.

I've done a number of debates We debate up at the University of Utah with Jerry Matitix. We did

Marion debates with Jerry on Long Island as well I debate

Christopher Ferrara On the subject we're gonna be getting that up on YouTube.

We just discovered that it was never put on YouTube Might as well get it there while we can Give them a little something extra to have to delete in the not -too -distant future, but The audio is up on YouTube and is the audio on sermon audio

No, we didn't that one fell fell through the cracks fell through the cracks. So And it's interesting

I'm not sure if I'll have time to remember to link to it. But during that particular debate with Christopher Ferrara He interestingly used a fake

Augustine quote. He didn't knows I'm like accusing him of knowingly doing it It's just there's such a long history such a long history of Roman Catholicism using fraudulent church history sources made up citations

The donation of Constantine the Pseudo -Isidore and decretals just look up the history of these things that there's literally thousands of alleged statements by early church writers

That Rome is utilized to define doctrine and dogma that just complete fakes and we know that today

But the the theology that was built upon those fakes continues and The reality is the majority of believers

Don't know where to go to look things up. Sometimes that there are there are still many many many untranslated volumes of For example origins works that have not yet appeared in English we just found what was it an

Armenian manuscript that has Who was that was that chrysostom

There was a commentary on Hebrews, it was just discovered from an important early early writer and Really looking forward to seeing that published in English eventually

I don't read Armenian. That's not Armenian. By the way, I do I do read Armenian does not

Armenian and so but but And even those of us who have fairly decent

Patristic resources and not not just the 38 volume Erdman set but a lot of the early church fathers set that's that's published outside of the

Erdman's material and a lot of the electronic stuff and TLG CD -ROMs and Apache Logia Latina and and all the rest that kind of stuff.

It's still challenging to track down a Lot of the citations that appear in material

Cyril of Alexandria, okay figured that's what you were looking up.

Anyway, um this might seem to many people to be somewhat of a esoteric topic where We're looking at the meltdown of the

United States government and hence entering into a period of tremendous global insecurity and change and undoubtedly violence and Fundamental degradation of the quality of life globally.

That's just the only outcome of What's going on here? whether you like it or not, this nation has been a force for stability and So you might say that's it all that's all we should be talking about.

Well, I Don't know about you but talking only about that Brings about depression

I'm not the only person noticing all the discussions of a sharp rise and suicides and and everything else that's going on in in the world right now and The issues of the gospel do not go away just because there's an election coming up and One side is doing everything they can to destroy the country before the election even takes place

So that they can then rule the country for the rest of time drive it into the ground These issues will still be relevant on November 5th,

November 6th, so on and so forth and Unfortunately, especially topics that deal with church history

End up being topics that are rife for abuse Because most people have such a

Disconnect from church history from the sources of church history, and of course,

I If you're new to the program over the years many people have asked me what were the classes that you took?

College Bible College Seminary that have been the most helpful to you in doing apologetics And I've always given the same answers

Greek and church history Greek Hebrew to a lesser extent

Knowing the biblical languages teaching the biblical languages but then church history because every cult and ism

Abuses church history every cult and ism so the

Mormons Will attempt to quote from sources of church history in Substantiation of their claims now no one no one in church history believe what

Joseph Smith believed by any stretch of the imagination, but that won't stop people at BYU from quoting things and Putting them in a completely foreign context and how many people can then call them on it

Jehovah's Witnesses Well known for their abuse of church history. I've told a very enjoyable story in the past Of My discussion with a pioneer

Jehovah's Witness on the subject of the testimony of Ignatius of Antioch to the deity of Christ, and how he was just Horrifically and purposely misrepresented by the

Watchtower Society many years ago. I wrote a lengthy article on the subject that documented this this

This type of thing but but again for most people For most Jehovah's Witnesses, they wouldn't know where to go and they would never even have the inclination to look

When it comes to subject Roman Catholicism today I find amongst non

Roman Catholics So, you know I could say Protestants, but I'm not sure that that term has almost any meaning any longer

It Even those who use the term don't know where it came from. They don't know the historical context of the

Diet of Spire in 1529 and the Holy Roman Empire and Charles the fifth and all the rest I can't so and so non non

Catholics in other words those who do not submit to the Self -claimed authority of the

Bishop of Rome now. There's a number of community communions under that It's not just Roman Catholicism.

That's sort of a Blanket term that would refer to them all but you've got Byzantine Catholics and things like that that are in communion with Rome, but Want to be differentiated traditionally liturgically within that context and then you have the

Eastern Orthodox churches and There is a resurgence of interest it goes in waves.

I've seen this more than once. I'm old enough now to start seeing these Waves as they as they go along But there's a resurgence of interest in in Eastern Orthodoxy and They have their own issues very very different mindset than the at least true

Eastern Orthodox folks from the East American Eastern Orthodoxy sounds argues very much like Rome but real

Eastern Orthodoxy from the East has a very mystical mindset and a mindset very different from those of us in the

West and therefore the things they even Would find to be central in argumentation not the same things that we would find to be central argumentation.

Anyway, the point is that Large majority of non -Roman

Catholic non -Eastern Orthodox General evangelicals do not know where they stand in church history.

They do not How many times have you seen church history classes offered even when a church is big enough to offer

Christian theology courses or things like apologetics courses It's very very rare for people to know and so when they encounter

People from different perspectives very often. We are talking past each other and Not prepared to hear what's being said when we speak of the

Marian doctrines We are speaking of one of the most important set of doctrines and dogmas within Roman Catholicism for this one reason

If you go to heavily Roman Catholic areas culturally Roman Catholic areas if you go to Mexico Almost anywhere in Mexico throughout

Central America. In fact into South America you will find the

Most Vivid Dedication to Mary The Virgin of Guadalupe You will find people who live their lives with the central religious character of their lives is

Mary and When you see the devotion

When you see the candles you see the statues you see the churches you see the parades the the processions

You begin to understand Why the pretended distinction between hyper

Dulia and Latria hyper veneration and worship just dissolves it

Dissolves in those places and Mary is plainly worshipped within those contexts plainly worship

You can you can try to make those other arguments all you want. They fail biblically

They collapse biblically both Dulia Duluo and Latruo are both translations of a

Hav from the Hebrew. That's just a fact. You can't get around it You can that's why you that's why Rome denies solo scriptura because if you if you apply the standard of scripture falls apart but That's the experience that many people have the

Marian Doctrines will call them doctrines. I'll explain between doctrine dogma in a moment

Are not only central to the experience of Most Roman Catholics.

There's a lot of Western Roman Catholics that diminish the centrality of the

Marian dogmas They can't technically But they do experientially so just as much as she is worshipped in Mexico Germany not so much

Sure, you'll find pockets but you'll find a lot of Quote unquote

Roman Catholics in Europe, for example To have really no Marian devotion at all

There wouldn't be any even reason to discuss Duluo and Latruo because they're not doing either one of them for really anybody

So you get a wide range but the point is that The that there have been three dogmas defined by Roman Catholicism over the past hundred and seventy years

Three so here is these are the examples that Rome gives to us of Her self -claimed authority

To violate Sola Scriptura she rejects Sola Scriptura and to define as dogma

De Fide by faith the content of the faith and so you need to understand a

Doctrine is something that can be taught but does not necessarily bind the conscience a

De Fide dogma Binds the conscience you must believe this. So when you encounter liberal

Roman Catholics at Boston College, for example Who clearly do not believe in the infallibility of the

Pope. They do not believe in the Immaculate Conception They do not believe in the bodily assumption. They really don't believe in Transubstantiation they don't believe that a priest has sacerdotal authority to forgive sins

They don't believe in purgatory. These people are not by Rome's own definition true

Roman Catholics They're really not and in fact

There's a strong stream within Roman Catholicism to say that they are de facto excommunicate

Whether the church gets around to doing it or not. They are by their own

Rejection of these teachings excommunicate from the church That's why there are certain priests that will stand up to Joe Biden and these other leftist

Democrats who claim to be Roman Catholics Well, wait a minute. That's not who I was thinking about who is the guy that It's one of it was one of the candidates

There's there think it was in New York where they went to Mass and the priest said no and it was it was over abortion and the point is their argumentation is that You're excommunicate you by your actions by your consistent support of the murder of unborn children

Homosexuality so on so forth you are excommunicate, so I will not give you Biden in South Carolina, okay

Well, and I think it's happened to others in New York because I remember something in New York So I think it's happened multiple times and you've got to give those rebel priests

Props for actually believing what they've been told to believe. I feel sorry for Roman Catholics.

I really do when when I first started Engaging Carl Keating and Jerry Matics and Patrick Madrid and Mark Brumley and eventually

Others joined in Staples came along later on Jimmy Akin came along later on too

This was this was 80s and Sure, it was post -vatican too.

So there's already a great deal of liberalism, but At least you still had a Pope at that time that Was a

Roman Catholic Sure, once in a while, you'd say something liberal they'd say something conservative, but but I feel

I There's a sense. I feel sorry I mentioned yesterday not know the day for Sometime this week.

I mentioned the story about the Roman Catholic kid that gets kicked out of Government in his university because he says to his fellow

Roman Catholics in a Roman Catholic chat thing This is what the church teaches and we shouldn't promote something other than that.

He was right. He was Orthodox boom He's out and it was fellow Roman Catholics that ratted him out so There's a sense in which you go

It was easier back in the days when I was debating folks where they actually believed what it was that they were saying and you could you had a

Here's here's the dogmas of the church but even back then we did a debate at Boston College and everybody knew

The vast majority of people I knew when I was there. That was 93. I That many of the priests that were attending

Were sitting there chuckling inside themselves That we were even having the debates we were having because they don't believe most of the stuff that we were arguing about So that's the situation that we're that we're facing now when we come to the

Marian dogmas then we have Defined by faith the last three

Dogmas defined by the Roman Catholic Church have been in 1854 the

Immaculate Conception of Mary the Vatican one council 1870 ish defines the infallibility of the

Pope and In 1950 you have the last dogma that has been defined by Roman Catholicism the bodily assumption of Mary and of course

There are still people alive that today that remember when that when that took place So that's

Be considered living memory so we can look at these dogmas and we can test

Rome's claims and The reality is when you test all three of these you discover that what

Rome is willing to bind upon the conscience of individuals today is something that no person

Attending the Council of Nicaea would have had any concept of would have ever defined as being part of the gospel

Not a single one not a single including the two representatives from the Bishop of Rome Would never have even conceived

Let alone did they believe or teach or preach or live in light of? things that are now bound de fide as As By faith a necessary element of the gospel and don't have time to go back to it right now

But I encourage you to go back and listen to the debates. We did with Jerry Matic's especially that first one we did on the

Marian dogmas Where he said we have the exact same warrant To believe in the bodily assumption of Mary as we have the resurrection of Jesus Christ Because it's the authority of the church

It's the authority of the church that is the fault that that's that's that's Sola Ecclesia that that is the only logical functional option

To Sola Scriptura is Sola Ecclesia and That's where he's coming from.

So the subject of the Immaculate Conception comes up because I think last week a video appeared on Facebook and It was a video hosted by Sam Shamoon and he had

William Albrecht on now William Albrecht and I I think did some we Had some type of debate at some point.

I think it was an online thing back before online there's There's probably three debates for debates going on online every single night anymore.

It is especially since the the Panic of 2020 the great shutdown of 2020

That has become the thing it is now Constant I'm not so sure about the quality of these debates to be perfectly honest with you.

I think it Be better to have a little stricter controls than a lot of these debates have but anyway

But it's become the big thing And so there is just so much online stuff if you you could just you don't you don't need

Netflix as long as you can Get into YouTube you you could spend every night. Just watch and watch and watch and watch and all sorts of stuff that's going on right now and this particular

Encounter was uh, I don't know. It's about what an hour and 40 minutes something like that. I forget exactly how long it was and William Albrecht has

Done all sorts of online stuff, especially with Turretinfan. I've lost track of how many

Encounters Turretinfan has had with William Albrecht and my recollection is that three

Of those have been on the subject of Immaculate Conception. I'm not sure how you do that more than once but Because church history ain't gonna change

Much during our lifetimes But evidently they've gone back and forth on this numerous times.

I've debated it more than once I don't think I've debated the same person. Well, okay, I'll take that back

Jerry and I the first debate we did on Long Island On Long Island was the

Merian Doctrines And so we only we did four doctrines in one debate and so it was really really fast

And then later we did just one whole debate just on the Immaculate Conception. So that's a little bit different.

But anyway Basically you had about a 40 minute presentation from William Albrecht and then

Since on YouTube you can do the YouTube chat thing and you've you've got questions being asked

There was no pushback. There was no No, there was no debate it was just him presenting his position he did present it as De Fide Dogma He Presented it as being the well

I think he specifically said the unanimous view of the early church, which is just the opposite of what his own sources say

That's and that's why I was such saying there's no pushback. There's nobody who had the sources. I've got Ludwig Ott sitting right here and and Shoemaker and Carol and O 'Carroll as well as Carol the two different Carol's Sitting over here, but There was no pushback.

There was no challenging to anything. He said His material was extremely flawed Extremely flawed and anyone who knows church history knows that but it was just presented as And he's gonna be back on to make further presentations so I wanted to talk about this subject to Equip our current audience with what this dogma is and why

No person who knows anything about church history or the Bible should ever believe it Or would ever believe it if you just simply stood back and said

I'm going to examine the Bible and early church literature

Because this is a dogma that finds its origination with a British monk named

Edmer at the beginning of the 12th century That's where it started That's where it started that's those are the facts and that's agreed upon by almost all historians

It really is you wouldn't you wouldn't realize that listening to William Albrecht but Let's start with this before even getting into the definition and stuff like that because that is important It is important that we understand it

If you think the Immaculate Conception has something to do with the virgin birth of Jesus, you're really confused. You need to understand.

I Would estimate I would estimate that 95 % plus of non

Roman Catholics Think the Immaculate Conception has to do with the virgin birth

That that'd be my guess Unless you're a former Roman Catholic But I know

I've taught I've run into many Roman Catholics nominal Roman Catholics have no clue what the Immaculate Conception is either so There you go,

I mean honestly if I were to give a quiz right now to our regular audience How well do you think you do?

How much confidence do you have that you really understand? What the concept of the

Immaculate Conception is? Like I said, it's defined in in Ephebelus Deus.

That's the name of the papal pronouncements papal bull From 1854 so you can find online and You can you can read it for yourself

Including the anathema at the end if you reject it So as it was defined this isn't a take it or leave it type thing

This isn't a well, you know, it would be better if you believe this. No, you are anathematized if You do not believe this the the the the papacy of 1854 what was the date on the papal syllabus of errors?

Look up papal syllabus of errors I used to have the it's very similar time frame Within a couple decades and one of the other

I think is actually afterwards 18 what it 1864 or 54 64 so a decade later

Yeah, yeah, so same time frame look up the papal syllabus of errors It is not ecumenical.

It actually denounces religious freedom But this was Rome at the time this was non postmodern we are the one true church

That's right that's within six years of papal infallibility so being pronounced so height of Hubris on Rome's part

But it's not ecumenical. And so when they anathematize anyone In 1854 who would question this they mean the real anathema not the new modern

Jimmy Akin eyes We can all still get along and and be good brothers type stuff.

No, that's That's not what they believed then And I know it's really common today just not not to be concerned about that That's just you know, let's just talk about how we feel about it today

But for those who are concerned about truth you want to truthfully understand what the original author is intended

So you can look up an anathema days anathema list a is for yourself read it for yourself

See what it says and If you do you will come to understand that what the dogma is about is about Mary now

What's interesting? You and this actually came up in some of the questions that were asked and one one questioner was spot -on

You cannot understand the doctrine immaculate conception. If you do not understand the concept of original sin as Enunciated by and taught by Augustine Which tells you something?

If you're gonna say it goes all the way back to the Apostles Then those people saying that nobody before Augustine believed in original sin

Have a problem and I know at least one individual who promotes both

Ken Wilson and this stuffs They don't fit they don't you can't do both of them because the whole driving force behind the concept of the immaculate conception of Mary is

The concern about the concept of original sin you have developing in church history especially after the rise of the desert fathers in Egypt in Late second into the really flourishing the third century the pillar

Saints people like them You have a tremendous increase in Mariology and eventually

Mariolatry with that is concurrent with the development of the monastic movement

And the concept of Celibacy so with that comes eventually the issues relating to the perpetual virginity of Mary and the sinlessness of Mary Now the issue of the perpetual virginity of Mary which we've again we've gone over all these things down through the years

But the perpetual virginity of Mary one of the Marian dogmas Teaches that Mary did not lose her intact virginal physical virginal state in the birth of Jesus Which is a fundamental denial of the incarnation if Jesus was not born as a man

Then he wasn't the God -man but if Mary remains a virgin then Jesus beamed out of Mary the first source

That suggests anything like this is the protevangelium of James, which is plainly

Gnostic in its orientation Plainly Gnostic not this isn't doesn't come from the

Apostles. You know, I could find anything about this in Scripture It comes from outside the

Bible and outside the faith But is now a dogma within Roman Catholicism That also is therefore why

Rome denies Why Rome actually teaches that these grown men traveling around with Mary are either

Actually Not her children at all But our children of Joseph by a previous wife or our cousins

So the natural use of language That you would use when

Jesus heals Peter's mother -in -law we know what a mother -in -law is

But we don't know what brothers are. We don't know what sisters are Those words have to be redefined by a later doctrine and dogma

That's what you have in Roman Catholicism. That's why Rome denies sola scriptura You would never come up with Rome's unique doctrines

If you practice sola scriptura if you actually just listen to what the Apostles themselves said, it's not possible

They have to come up with some other source and that of the source is tradition, which is whatever Rome says it is

They can never tell you here is tradition. It's whatever Rome says and in fact from an orthodox perspective today

Tradition now includes the Immaculate Conception bodily assumption papal infallibility and all the rest that kind of stuff even though nobody the first 500 years of the church never even dreamed of any of it.

But anyway That's why we have to do these things. So the Immaculate Conception back to that The Immaculate Conception is the idea that Mary from the very

First moment of her conception is Protected from the stain of original sin by a pre emptive application of the grace and merit of the sacrifice of her son so There there is a reason for the language because after hundreds of years of Argumentation the

Dominicans and the Franciscans were beating each other up over this stuff They had competing visions of Mary where where Mary would show up for one group and say she's immaculately

Conceived and show up for the other group and say she wasn't so hey, you know It's sort of helpful to have all these visions of Mary and of course if this was apostolic, why are all these people running around arguing about it, but Church history has a way of messing with the nice clean categories that Roman Catholic apologists like to come up with Anyway When it was finally defined it was defined with a recognition of What the key objections were

I'm gonna give you a list eventually here We're gonna we are gonna get around this eventually you've got till 6 or 7 tonight, right?

10 12. Okay. Good. Hey, I I took a picture outside his house this morning at 4 22 a .m

Because I did I did Inferno ride number one where I did a 50 mile ride this morning and It was we set a new record for yesterday's 118 degrees yesterday.

So it was a hundred It was still a hundred and two at 1 a .m So it didn't drop in this into the 90s and yeah.

Yeah, it did Yeah, so I had I had I had decided that I was gonna go by Rich's house and do a stalker picture

Where I'm where I'm out. Yeah, I'm doing the you know thing. Ah, you know, you're asleep. Ha ha and And I was the only person moving around At that that time the morning it was it was fun.

Why did I say that? See you we totally fell off the thing there

See, you've got to stop you got to stop. I Think you did I'm I'm gonna

I'm gonna blame you for it, but you know, sorry Yes, I yes,

I know so the the immaculate conception is

Arguing they knew what the I said what I said was I was gonna I'm gonna give you a list of people who taught against the immaculate conception which included

Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura and just a huge number of people

Popes and early church fathers and John Chrysostom and all these people had no concept

So they already knew What the objections were?

So you word your you phrase your your your statement your wording so as to get around the primary objections that you already know exist and so the definition is

Put in such a way that it will allow you to explain. Well, you know Mary talks about God her

Savior So there has to be some way for God to be Mary's Savior, even though Mary never experiences sin.

And so The idea is that Mary from the first moment of her conception.

There's this application of the merits of Christ anticipatorily

Applied to her so that she is supernaturally protected from the stain of original sin and Hence is most fitting to be the mother of God the one who gives birth to the

God man the Messiah Jesus and so This is defined 1854 so One of the illustrations that's been used to help you understand what this is all about is

The idea of a mud pit in the forest and let's say a travelers walking along and It's deep forest and you turn a corner and before you can stop or anything.

There's a mud pit there's nothing to grab on to and you fall in and Of course you're now just covered in Muck and it's hard to get out and oh, it's it's terrible to think about That's what happens to all of us with sin

When we are born original sin, we fall in we're now covered there. We can never clean ourselves up but what if as you're walking around that corner and your foot is in the air and you're about to fall in someone reaches out

And grabs you and keeps you from falling in the mud pit That person would be your

Savior Even though you never fell in the mud to get muddy in the first place see

So that's how Mary can say God my Savior and Jesus can be called

Mary's Savior, even though Mary never sinned See how that works now, obviously

The idea that that's what Mary was saying when she said God my Savior is so absurd that it's laughable and Everyone should see that When you have to take the carefully worded constructions

That have come from hundreds of years of theological battles Almost 2 ,000 years after Mary and read them back into her words so that There is nothing in her context that would give you any basis for ever believing

That that's what she meant and then you sit there and go. Yeah, that's what Mary meant. That is the very

Definition of eisegesis It's laughably absurd, but that's what

Rome will tell you but you see here's what happens Because we don't know what the definition is and we hear someone present something.

It's thought -out. I Mean, oh, okay. Yeah, the guy reaches out keeps me from falling in he would be a

Savior and That's enough to stop us from taking the next step and going

But would Mary have had that what in the world in the context would make you think that that's what

Mary was thinking Mary literally had those categories.

They're defined by Rome in 1854 in her mind when she when she says these things that's absurd

Of course, it's absurd and when you buy that kind of absurdity you can now no longer defend meaningfully any of the rest of the central doctrines as a

Christian faith and as far as history is concerned because if you're willing to do that level of cramming something in to church history and the and the biblical text

Aren't you doing that with the Trinity resurrection deity of Christ all the rest that stuff. You've just destroyed your own credibility

You just destroyed it There are people doing that and that's the problem.

That's the problem All right, so let's go ahead and show this I need to get to this we're never get this done

I have a presentation here and this is what I used in 2010 so figure it's still workable.

I did correct three typographical errors while going through it again But hopefully this will be useful to us

So as I was just saying in Luke chapter 1 verses 46 47 Mary said my soul exalts the Lord and my spirit has rejoiced in God my

Savior and So Rome has an ex Rome the the entire set of Marian dogmas

The the perpetual virginity of Mary Mary as Theotokos, which initially was not about Mary It was about Jesus It was an affirmation that Jesus was a god -man at his birth

It was it was Christological in orientation not Mary illogical that's changed You know that you know the virgin birth of Jesus then the the sinlessness of Mary perpetual virginity of Mary Then the definition of the

Immaculate Conception bodily assumption and there are further dogmas that could be defined in the future. There is the The the movement with millions of signatories to it to have the

Pope define Mary as co -redemptrix Comediatrix and advocate for the people of God. That's another subject get to another point, but Rome builds upon the

Very small amount of data in the New Testament about Mary and there is there's only a few there's only there's very few texts about Mary Very few texts about Mary They will read

Mary into other texts just because they need it but every text about Mary will be filled to the brim with allegorical interpretation and Everything else because you you've got a huge edifice

You got to find some type of foundation for it got to find some site. So it's a foundation so they know all the texts and so as I said,

Mary says my spirit has rejoiced to God my Savior now if we utilized the same exegesis that we use

For the Trinity the deity of Christ person Holy Spirit resurrection inspiration of Scripture Doctrine of Atonement all those things if we use that same

Methodology here. We would not find in these words anything about Mary Using the term

Savior here in Anything that is even remotely connected to the idea of a preemptive application the merits of her son that protects her from original sin

But Rome doesn't do that and doesn't have to because One of the things that's illustrated by looking at all the

Marian dogmas is the difference between sola scriptura and sola ecclesia Between scripture as your ultimate authority and the church is your ultimate authority with scripture being the church's playground to do with as she wishes

When you apply one set of exegetical standards to one text and a completely different set to another text

You really aren't showing much respect for the Word of God and that's what

Rome does in these texts. That's that's very very clear I Am not sure why this is not allowing me to go to the next

Well, if I hit play it's gonna I don't know what this was working just fine before all right,

I'm gonna have to Do this All right

Can't do it like that It won't let me Well, let me do anything else for some reason all of a sudden so we'll just have to zoom in on that if you can and Cut out the stuff on the side

Luke chapter 1 verses 26 through 29 now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called

Nazareth to a virgin engaged to a Man, whose name was Joseph of the descendants of David Virgin's name was

Mary and coming in he said to her greetings favored one The Lord is with you, but she was very perplexed this statement and kept pondering.

What kind of salutation this was now, this is absolutely central To the

Roman Catholic dogma and definition of the Immaculate Conception You may say really

What could there be that would be central to that and the answer is?

the greeting of the angel the greeting of the angel

Greetings favored one the Lord is with you now that is in Greek Chi is

Elthon pros outane. I pen so the angel can enters in saying to her Kyra Kakar to many

Ha courteous met us ooh So Kyra greetings

Kakar to many Favored one ha courteous met us ooh. The Lord is with you.

It is astonishing the claims that are made for the meaning of Kakar to many

But as I said Rome is forced by definition to read into this text a

Tremendous volume of information a tremendous volume of information So that every defender of The concept of the

Immaculate Conception Will tell you that what Kakar to many?

communicates is the idea that Mary has always been full of grace fully graced and hence

Could never have been under the influence of sin and hence was immaculately conceived so an angelic greeting in Luke is

Presented as the foundation now they admit the

Bible is not specifically trying to teach this but this is the Assertion that is that is being made are we stuck with that up there, or I'm confused

Yeah, so The problem is that that is not oh, how'd that happen?

The problem is that That's not what Kakar to many means

When you How do we how do we put this in a respectful manner

Let's keep keep one thing in mind When we are comparing interpretive methodologies here as we're gonna see in a little while the very

Statement of Rome is that this that they are defining is what the church has always believed and so I can allow early church fathers to be early church fathers a

Roman Catholic cannot they are told what to find in the early sources and that ends up being the same thing with the scripture

So when you are told that This is what you're gonna find in Scripture and in tradition, then that's what you find in Scripture in tradition

That's not doing ex -jesus That's the same thing the

Mormons do or Jehovah's Witnesses do or anybody else you have your you already have your Determined conclusion and you just go find it and so when you ask the question well what?

What about this word means that Mary has been sinless since conception?

Well, it can't be the root which is car a Tahoe It can't be the root car a Tahoe Carl Keating for example and William Albrecht Repeated a lot of this material

Carl Keating had alleged years ago. The Greek indicates a perfection of grace a perfection of grace

Why why is that the case? Well When you look at the very word itself car a

Tahoe You will not find anywhere in lexical sources the meaning of sinlessness

It's it's not there. It is to be favored by God or the very favor of God I mean

Karis is the root that's grace God's grace God's favor and so none of them say

That this refers to sinlessness The only other occurrence of car a

Tahoe so an Omicron contract verb car a Tahoe is that Ephesians 1 6 and Ephesians 1 6 says to the praise the glory of his grace

Which he freely bestowed on us literally car a Tahoe on us in the

Beloved One in The Beloved One that is in Christ So who is car a

Tahoe? the elect The elect

Receive grace from God in Christ Do we receive sinlessness will receive his righteousness?

But it doesn't mean that we are sinless has nothing to do with sinlessness

It has to do with the favor of God the elect received the favor of God in Christ Jesus Mary was blessed by God To be chosen to be the mother of the

Messiah Has nothing to do with sinlessness. It has nothing to do with perfections of graces

Nothing to do with it at all. So it can't come from car a Tahoe So, where does it come from?

Well, it's a participle you see and I love

I just very few of the

Roman Catholic apologists with whom I have engaged We're actually able to translate the

Greek New Testament actually able to read it with any level of facility whatsoever let alone explain its

Grammar and syntax and and issues like that and So when you hear people talking about well, it you know, it's it's a it's a perfect participle and so You know that means that it's it this this action of grace has been completed in the past and that's why she's never been under the dominion of sin and Things like that now remember never been under the dominion of sin.

That's your later theology being read back into this we're trying to find what the source of it is and Is an angelic greeting?

to Mary Announcing to her that she's could be the mother of the Messiah is that sufficient to demonstrate that that was what was being communicated the problem is that if you want to utilize

This type of participial argument The results don't work real well

Because a perfect passive participle is used in Matthew 25 34 come

You who are blessed by my father? hmm, so if The use of that form of a participle means it's always been that way in the life of the individual

That means that for Christians We could we could now make the argument that the the blessing of God Has been ours from the time of our conception and so we're immaculately conceived too, right?

Because I mean that would be a blessing or First Thessalonians 1 4 knowing brethren beloved by God So Obviously God loves that which is sinless and Therefore we've been immaculately conceived because we've been loved by God from the beginning, right?

I mean, it's fitting and That's what this is. It's a fittingness argument, which can be used to prove anything as we will point out later on Second those second

Thessalonians to the team, but we should always give thanks to you brethren beloved by the Lord Hmm, okay so Neither the meaning of the word nor the form of the word

Actually, and this was something that Albrecht said multiple times He said well the

Greek proves He actually seemed to indicate that he can actually read

Greek I'd like to know where he has taught Greek I like to know if he's published anything that demonstrates his facility in the language

Maybe Published some studies of perfect passive participles and their utilization in the

New Testament outside the New Testament Maybe using the Tharis lingua greca Resources stuff like that.

I'd be interested in seeing any of that. I've not seen any of that from him But the reality is

That what we have here utilizing the same kind of hermeneutics and interpretation

That we would use in talking about anything else is The angel says greetings

You are favored by God the Lord is with you and In verse 30, he's gonna say the same thing again without any of the grace stuff

And that's all there is there's there's absolutely nothing in the text that would tell us.

Oh look at look at this This is actually a huge dogma here No, there's there's nothing there

Whatsoever about any of that Now it's also extremely important to understand the protevangelium the protevangelium

The protevangelium I will put enemy Enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring.

He shall bruise your head. You shall bruise his heel Genesis chapter 3 There is a problem in the

Latin Vulgate There is a mistranslation. Yes, Jerome was actually fallible well and His transmitters were also fallible in the

Vulgate you have ipsa contadit caput tuum the feminine form the

New Vulgate says ipsum the masculine but The statement

In effabalus deus that defines us as a dogma is in error in its understanding of the

Vulgate and Takes as the feminine she The result of this is fascinating.

Look at this now Ludwig Ott. Here's Ludwig Ott fundamentals of Catholic dogma Ludwig Ott right here

Ludwig Ott was called the great Ludwig Ott By Mr.

Albrecht at least three times maybe more During the course of presentation he made the great

Ludwig Ott the great Ludwig Ott says the bold does not give any

Authentic explanation of the passage It must also be observed that the infallibility the papal doctrine doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such

And not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma

I want you to think about that I Want you to think about what is being said here papal infallibility is one of the most useless creations of the fevered mind of man

I've ever seen and I say that having debated it a number of time with Roman Catholic apologists who gave completely different Presentations as to why it's true contradictory presentations and they could do it because it doesn't mean anything papal infallibility means

That if the Pope was right, he was infallible and if he was wrong, he wasn't so you can never know

You can never know Well what the Pope is saying is infallible enough, but here you discover the

Pope can be wrong about the scripture he's interpreting and You can say the bold does not give any authentic explanation of passage.

Of course it does Would the Pope have agreed with this? No, but the Pope is dead. So now we can go.

Yeah, he was wrong about that It's sort of like Sixtus than his infallible Vulgate You know the

Pope came up with an infallible Vulgate and no one uses it anymore because it was quite fallible But the time the

Pope thought it was infallible So hey, but the bold does not give any authentic explanation of passage the Pope thought differently.

It must also be observed that the infallibility of the papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as Such and not the reasons given is leading up to the dogma

So the Pope can give you his reasons and you can say his reasons were fruit loops

But it's still infallible Because he's the Pope I I didn't write it the great

Ludwig Ott did so the dogma was based upon a misunderstanding in Latin of the protevangelium which

Roman Catholics Recognized today, but it's still dogma. It's just like the papacy itself built upon So many of the citations from the

Pseudo -Isidore and Decretals all recognized as fraudulent today But the papacy still stands its foundations

God Just hanging up there in space. But yeah

Ott admits the necessary interpretation of the protevangelium found in Ephebelus Deus Quote, this is the great

Ludwig. I'm sorry. I need to is that his title? I need to make sure we the great Ludwig Ott Says that the necessary interpretation of protevangelium found in Ephebelus Deus is

Not found in the writings of the majority of the fathers Among them the great teachers of the

East and West end quote Mr. Albrecht did not quote that part on the video and in fact anyone listening to That presentation by mr.

Albrecht would never Ever have come to the conclusion that Ludwig Ott did

Anybody listening that would have thought Wow everybody Believed in this stuff. I mean that we just it's it's early and it's universal.

It's just this is everybody believed this According to Ludwig Ott It's not found the writings the majority the fathers among them the great teachers the

East and the West That's right. It isn't Luke 142 and She cried out with a loud voice and said blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb every

Roman Catholic knows that one because it's repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the

Rosary, but I would point out that it says blessed. Are you? you log a men a sue and good nights in Amongst women not above women

Amongst Not above that's the meaning of the language next we need to address the concept of suitability

This comes up in a lot of the Marian dogmas But especially this one bodily assumption as well the concept of suitability and perpetual virginity actually

Being eternally chosen by the father to be the bride of the Holy Ghost That's utilized in a lot of Marian Materials today and the mother of the

Son of God it was eminently proper eminently proper eminently proper does not mean founded on apostolic teaching

Just keep that but but this is the suitability It was eminently proper that from the very beginning of her existence

She should be kept entirely exempt from contact with sin and the dominion of Satan So it's it's eminently proper

So if you listen to William Albrecht's presentation You'll hear this over and over again.

It's it's it's foundational to Roman Catholic teaching. Well, obviously

Obviously Satan would not have dominion over her at any point in her life well, obviously

That should have been the same with her mother and father too, right? I mean it's suitable It's it's eminently proper

Right Yeah, this is the suitability argument Such arguments are vacuous.

They prove nothing as st. Bernard himself point on st. Bernard. Oh my goodness It's not a dog.

By the way, st. Bernard is one of the most wild -eyed fanatical

Marian devotees ever as St. Bernard himself pointed out that it would then be fitting for Mary's mother to be immaculately conceived and Mary's grandmother

Etc. It would be fitting for Peter to be free of sin and Paul, etc And etc, and it would be perfectly fitting

Just think how fitting it would be for all the Apostles to have been immaculately conceived

I mean there wouldn't have been any of the fights and they would have been such better Disciples it's it's it's eminently suitable

But it's not argument Nor is it an argument in regards to Mary and her alleged suitability in that context either

But if we choose to apply it now Here's what Tertullian said about this suitability type argumentation in his own day and this is in the second century

But if we choose to apply his principles so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations

We may then make out God to have done anything we please on the ground that it was not impossible for him to do it

We must not however because he is able to do all things suppose that he has actually done what he has not done

But we must inquire whether he has really done it So you can sit here and go.

Well, it would be suitable. It makes sense I mean, why wouldn't God do this for Mary?

That's not an argument and even Tertullian recognized that There's lots of things

God could have done. That doesn't mean he did those things You have to have a revelation from God to demonstrate whether he did or didn't and Tertullian recognized that a long long time ago the great

Ludwig Ott said The doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in Scripture neither the

Greek nor the Latin fathers Explicitly teach the immaculate conception of Mary Ludwig Ott pages 200 and 201 again

If you listen to William Albrecht's presentation, you wouldn't get that idea You heard a lot about Ott you didn't hear these quotes

The doctrine the immaculate conception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in Scripture neither the

Greek nor the Latin fathers Explicitly teach the immaculate conception of Mary. I agree with Ludwig Ott.

He's right well -known church historian JND Kelly Listed such notables as Irenaeus Tertullian and Origen who taught that Mary committed acts of personal sin

So not only did they not give any evidence whatsoever in their writings Which are especially in Origen's part voluminous of a belief in the immaculate conception

They didn't believe in the sinlessness of Mary that would develop by the days of Augustine Sinlessness as in not committing personal sin that's still different than not being in Adam in his fall

That's that there's still this is something that developed and took steps and steps and steps evolutionarily over literally 1 ,800 years

Until you have in Ephebelis days It's not apostolic. It's not biblical. It doesn't come from the

Apostles of Jesus Doesn't come in from inspired scripture and Yet men will bind it as William Albrecht does bind it in the consciousness of men because William Albrecht knows what they feed a means and a day feed a dogma defines the gospel a day feed a dogma defines the gospel others who made reference directly to personal acts of sin on Mary's part included

John Chrysostom and I'm Fairly certain I could be wrong about this, but I'm fairly certain that Chrysostom's name was brought up by Albrecht as One teaching that Mary was immaculate.

I'm not sure I'd be happy that could be if he likewise said that she At the wedding in Canaan Galilee and then when she and her sons

Came to get Jesus. Remember those they're staying outside and Thought he was mad

He indicated these were failures on her part Cyril of Alexandria and Basil of Caesarea none had the slightest idea of the immaculate conception and Simply using the term immaculate or holy or pure Does not mean the same thing as the immaculate conception that was one of the

Obvious things that came up over and over again Augustine and this was interesting as I mentioned earlier

My opponent in the debate in 2010 brought up a fake Augustine quote, so you got to be careful about stuff like that Augustine exempted

Mary from acts of personal sin But not from the stain of original sin

Pelagius the heretic exempted Mary and many others from the stain of original sin Augustine said

Mary died due to inherited sin. Surmo 2 on Psalm 34

Augustine said Mary died due to inherited sin. Augustine spoke of Mary receiving the grace of regeneration in the incompleted work contra

Julian He likewise taught that Christ alone was sinless

His influence had to be overcome during the intervening 1400 years before Ineffabellus Deus could see the light of day

It was primarily Augustine's influence had to be overcome The greatest testimony against their own position is a truly universal early tradition of the church which

Rome Impudently rejects the fact that we could spend the rest of the night reading the testimonies the early fathers to one truth

God alone in Christ is sinless That is repeated over and over and over and over again without the necessary Codicil that a modern

Roman Catholic would have to give in regards to Mary No one back then even thought it was necessary to have to add that little thing in Because it wasn't being taught as the great

Ludwig Ott emphasized At least seven bishops of Rome taught that Mary was conceived in sin

These are Leo the first Gregor the first innocent the third Galatians the first innocent the fifth John The 22nd and Clement the sixth and you might say well, why aren't there more?

How many of them would necessarily even be addressing something that would be relevant to this? Now I'll tell you what the response is immediately

Those are not infallible statements doesn't matter what it demonstrates is this is a later development

It is not the universal faith the church. It is not apostolic It is not some tradition that can be traced back to the

Apostles It is a development of doctrine that came out of other doctrines that came out of other doctrines many of which did not have their source

Such as the perpetual Virginia Mary even in inspired scripture, but instead

Gnostic sources were the source of those things In fact, it's interesting that clearly some of the influence on the

Quran comes from the same Gnostic sources that then produced these dogmas Might want to look for consistency on that For centuries

Rome left the matter undecided and great debates took place over the topic the Dominicans and the Franciscans Fought viciously over it.

Well, why I Thought it was apostolic. Why would there be fighting over it in this way, right?

St. Brigitte had a vision of Mary supporting immaculate conception

While st. Catherine of Siena prophesied for the Dominicans that Mary was sanctified three hours after conception.

Well three hours Why What's that all about?

Why why even so you've got Saints and visions and Stuff like that going on and the

Franciscans and the Dominicans duking it out behind the monastery and Ephebelus Deus contains two

Fundamental errors that require its rejection by any truth -loving person the error regarding Genesis 3 15 is fundamental.

We already looked at that But it further states quote this doctrine always existed in the church as a doctrine that has been received from our

Ancestors and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine end quote.

I didn't write it Rome did and those are lies

They're just untrue They're absolutely untrue. It did not always exist in the church even ought admits that the great ought

Receive them our ancestors. Well, if you want to make your ancestors a hundred years earlier, okay that's not what it means and That has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine if it's not taught

By the Apostles, it's not revealed doctrine. But this is where we really begin to recognize that these three dogmas macular conception papal infallibility bodily assumption

Do demonstrate that functionally Rome does not have a closed canon This requires new revelation, that's why you deny a soul of scriptura because you don't believe in souls because you don't believe what scripture teaches

Pious the ninth in his letter Ubi primum February 2nd 1849 so five years before him is

Asking the bishops of the world whether he should define the immaculate conception. Here's what he says

Great indeed is our trust in Mary The resplendent glory of her merits far exceeding all the choirs of angels elevates her to the very steps of the throne of God Her foot has crushed the head of Satan.

Well, wait a minute That's the misunderstanding of Genesis 315 that's the error of The Vulgate at Genesis 315.

That's what the great Ludwig Ott says. We don't have to accept this but this is the Bishop of Rome Writing to the bishops and He's in error.

Just just so we just so we're following where this really came from This didn't get read by William Albrecht in the presentation, by the way, just say in passing

Set up between Christ and his church Mary ever lovable and full of grace

Always has delivered the Christian people from the greatest calamities and from the snares and assaults of all their enemies ever rescuing them from ruin

The foundation of all our confidence as you know, well venerable brethren is found in the

Blessed Virgin Mary For God has committed to marry the treasury of all good things

In order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope every grace and all salvation

For this is his will that we obtain everything through Mary. Do you really think?

Do you really think that this man? was looking at history and scripture in any type of Truthful fashion if my friend if you can't see the difference between that kind of Marian idolatry and the

Apostles of Jesus You have no discernment whatsoever none none even with that letter

There were some who said no, I don't think you should the Archbishop of Paris Sibur Recognized the damage such a definition would do for he knew it quote could be proved neither from the scriptures

Nor from tradition and to which reason and science raised insoluble or at least inextricable difficulties end quote

There were some who said no just as there were just as as John Henry Cardinal Newman Opposed papal infallibility until it was defined then he bowed to it

There were those at the time said Scriptures in our tradition teach it.

I said scriptures in our tradition Explicitly teach it now you have to use explicitly because you want to leave room for the implicitly part

Philip Schaaf the dogma of the sinlessness of Mary is also unCatholic It lacks every one of the three marks of true

Catholicity according to the canon of Vincent Leranensis Vincent of Lyon Lyon, which is professedly recognized by Rome herself so you've heard people's talk about the

Semper the ubiquitous and the Ab -omnibus, so if it's been believed always and by everyone everywhere, so not just in one area by everybody and at all periods of time in the church, so this is sort of a

Canon that some people utilize and Schaaf is saying it fails all three and Instead of a unanimous consent of the fathers in its favor

There is a unanimous silence or even protest of the fathers against it for more than ten centuries after the

Apostles it was not dreamed of and when first broached as a pious opinion, it was strenuously opposed and Continued to be opposed till 1854 by many of the greatest saints and divines the

Roman Catholic Church including St. Bernard and like I said this guy the stuff he said about Mary will curl your hair, but he opposed it and St.

Thomas Aquinas and several popes creeds of Christendom 1 129 Even the medieval church stood opposed to the specific doctrine dogmatized by Roman 1854

Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the view saying it was contrary to tradition and damaged the dignity of Jesus Christ the only sinless one

He asked of those who are beginning to promote the idea whence they discovered such a hidden fact on the same ground

They might appoint festivals for the conception of the parents grandparents and great -grandparents of Mary and so on without end the same ground was taken

Substantially by the greatest schoolmen in the Middle Ages till the beginning of the 14th century Anselm of Canterbury who closely followed

Augustine, Pierre the Lombard the master of sentences, Alexander of Hales the Irrefragable doctor,

St. Bonaventura the Seraphic doctor, Albertus Magnus the wonderful doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas the angelic doctor and the very champion of orthodoxy followed by the whole school of Thomas and the order of the

Dominicans Likewise if Mary had been conceived without original sin

Aquinas says She would not have had to be redeemed by Christ And so Christ would not be the universal

Redeemer of men which detracts from his dignity Accordingly, we must hold that she was conceived with original sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way so Aquinas has a

Thoroughly unbiblical view of Mary which he's already inherited from those before us But he still wasn't to that point the point is what you need to recognize historically the

Roman Catholicism of the Reformation Was closer to the truth than the

Roman Catholicism today That's why there's lots of discussion about what the reformers and Mary and stuff like that They didn't say much about Mary in regards to Rome because this stuff had not this is hundreds of years later.

This is further Development away from the truth that comes even much later after the time of the reformers

The concept first arises in the dogmatic form bound upon the consciences of Roman Catholics today at The beginning of the 12th century in the teachings of a

British monk named Edmer Edmer You want to know where the

Immaculate Conception as defined? Dogmatically as a dogma that you must believe

It's part of the gospel Came from a British monk named Edmer I'm never gonna believe anything defined by someone named

Edmer. That's just just a commitment that I made a long time ago It's well, but the

British parts definitely. Yeah, if the Scottish monk Named Macalester, that would be a lot better.

But a British monk named Edmer. I mean really seriously Who proposed the passive?

Immaculate conception of Mary free from original sin his views were rejected by st. Bernard Peter Lombard Anaquinas he used the argument

God could do it He ought to do it and therefore he did it the suitability argument.

God could do it He ought to do it and therefore he did it Which again is the argument for anything you can prove anything from that Hence, here's an

F of Alistair's. Let me quote. Here is the dogmatic decree of the church This is what

William Olivebrecht defends He better defend it. I would have no respect for him if he didn't defend this

This is what he's defending hence, if anyone shall dare which God forbid to think otherwise and as has been defined by us let him know and Understand that he is condemned by his own judgment that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith

That he has separated from the unity of the church and that furthermore by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or By writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart

Do you think now remember ten years later papers papal syllabus of late of errors look that up read it

They mean every syllable of what's written here. This isn't this isn't the post -modern

That there's nothing there's no room in here for the wishy -washy ecumenical post -modernism of today

Rome meant this Rome meant this so let's summarize

Since we've already gone for An hour and 35 minutes. Let's summarize The concept of the sinlessness and immaculate conception of Mary is ugly foreign

The inspired scriptures the foundation of the Christian faith. This is not something Even the great

Ludwig Ott admits it is not taught explicitly there is zero reason none

To believe on the basis of inspired scripture that the Apostles Taught that this was true that this had been passed on to them by the

Lord Jesus By Mary by the Spirit of God that this was a part of the deposit of faith

This is what had been delivered Orally to the church at Thessalonica Separately from what is written?

None of those categories. There is no reason to believe Anywhere that anyone had ever even dreamed of this stuff in the first century the time of the

Apostles It's simply unbiblical and the protevangelium again misunderstood misapplied misinterpreted

Foundational to the erroneous interpretation given by in Ephebelus Deus the dogmatic concept of immaculate conception is unknown to the first thousand years of church history and Stands in alterably opposed to its constant witness to the uniqueness of Christ as alone without sin it is part of Rome's purposeful

Attempt to parallel in Mary the unique offices of Jesus There's no question of this

The only way someone will respond to this is to try to Not provide any meaningful direct citations that were someone's actually talking about Mary's conception

Well, they're actually addressing the subject. What you do is you look for words while someone called Mary immaculate

So it must mean that no, it doesn't mean that Mary was given a highly exalted position no question about even much higher than what the

New Testament gives her and pointing out that Protestants Do tend to ignore

Mary is not a counter argument because that's a truism But the reason is because of this kind of absurd exaltation of Mary to the cost of the singular glory of Jesus even when the concept does appear it is opposed by the vast majority of learned writers and is only promoted through religious zeal and factional infighting its final definition shows

Rome is not bound by either scripture or tradition because Think about it the last three dogmas immaculate conception fallibility the

Pope bodily assumption Are any of them taught by scripture are any of them part of the tradition of the church of the first 500 years?

No No, and The only way that Rome has to try to shoehorn any of them into that time period is to absolutely

Abuse the sources they use but they have to they're told by Rome. This has been the constant faith of the church

That's why I say we can let the early church fathers be the early church fathers and we can disagree with them

But when the Roman Catholic to be faithful is told you will find this in scripture.

You will find this in the early fathers They're just doing what they've been told to do by binding this man -made unbiblical a historical dogma upon the consciences of men

Rome has forever separated herself from those who follow Christ his Apostles and the gospel they proclaim to the world remember

This is not an optional thing This is not optional thing when you define something de fide

That's a dividing line and you can you can get all the warm ecumenical fuzzies you want

That does not change the fact. This is a dividing line if Paul anathematized the

Judaizers for adding one thing to the gospel think of all the things that Rome is out of the gospel

What's your ultimate authority? What's your real foundation? That's really the question

That's really the question So, I hope this has been helpful to you I am thinking about Didn't have time today, but I'm thinking about queuing up a couple of the statements

That were made that we covered a lot of them already On specific assertions, well, we'll we'll see but Given that William Albrecht says the great

Ludwig Ott and I quoted the great Ludwig Ott over and over again on the issue

Ott does seem to be very much in line with Carroll O 'Carroll and others in the pile of books over here, by the way, you can bring my background down there

That's a pretty windows background, but Hopefully that is useful to everybody

Let me just conclude with this what does this communicate to us? Sola Scriptura Is not just simply something that you have debates about on Facebook or on YouTube It determines what you're gonna believe if you believe the doctrine of the

Trinity you better believe in Sola Scriptura because if you reject

Sola Scriptura and And say the doctrine of the Trinity is defined by external authority Then you're gonna have to accept all the other things those external authorities tell you

Even when they become well, let's just put it this way if you're playing around if you're playing footsie with Rome Look at the current

Pope. What could he define tomorrow? What could he teach tomorrow?

He's clearly a universalist. It's plainly a universalist. What about the next

Pope? Francis has done the College of Cardinals what the

Democrats want to do to the Supreme Court packed it with his acolytes and They are not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination

So when that white smoke goes up next time either when Francis could you imagine if Francis?

retired like like Ratzinger did Could you imagine three

Two of whom clearly don't disagree. They don't agree with one another on so many things and now you got somebody else to throw in Oh, I Really?

Hope that I hope Francis decides take a vacay and just I've done this well

I've done this long enough. Let's you know, that would be that would be really awesome and Ratzinger just hangs on out of spite

I think Ratzinger is pulling of a What's the Supreme Court justice

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they look a lot alike when you think about it Has anyone seen

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Carla Ratzinger in the same room at the same time is my question I'm not

I think I'm on to something. I think I'm on to something right here I'm not sure either one of them is still naturally alive actually

But I I think Ratzinger is just holding on for nastiness just just because he's so angry with what

Francis has done, but anyway If if that's your ultimate authority

What confidence can you really have that your grandchildren will believe the same things you believe?

See, I have perfect confidence that my grandchildren will believe the same things that I believe You know why because this ain't changing anytime soon.

Okay, and This is what the Saints have had from the beginning This is the

Anustos nothing else is nothing else is This doesn't teach what Rome teaches.

That's why Rome has to deny sola scriptura and I feel for anybody Who falls off this foundation?

There is no firm foundation anyplace else No world. Thanks for watching dividing line today.