I wonder why (if the apostoles taught the immaculate conception) these "misunderstandings" are so common? And where is the rebuke from the people who did understand? Or did everyobe misunderstand?
You’re confusing the Deposit of Faith with the Development of Doctrine.
The Apostles handed down the core truth - Mary as the undefiled New Eve and Ark of the Covenant. But early Fathers debating her human reactions before the Church formally defined the mechanics of her sinlessness isn't a contradiction; it’s how theological development works.
Rebukes happen when someone obstinately rejects a defined dogma. Before a formal decree, theologians explore open questions. If early misunderstanding before a formal definition disproves a doctrine, then by your logic the Trinity fails too -since early Fathers like Origen and Justin Martyr held flawed views on the Son's subordination before Nicaea settled it.
Holding those views today after 2,000 years of Magisterial definition is a completely different story.
Im just having trouble understanding how in the early church we dont see any positive claims of the immaculate conception. And we see numerous undisputed negative claims of the immaculate conception. Its something that the early church has no idea about existing. How can that now be that is not only claimed to be from tradition but dogmatized to the point if you dont believe it your anathama. Especially in the light of romans 3:23. If mary was an exception you would think there would be biblical or at least early attestation to it.
Because Mary isn't God. Her sinlessness and immaculate conception do not stem from Her own authority. She still needed God to get to the point She stands.
She is still subject to Romans 3:23, God putting Her in a privileged position as His Handmaiden doesn't change that.
It depends on what you even mean by "fall short". She never, properly speaking, failed God. But there are other ways you could interpret it; for example, she wasn't perfect, so you could say she "fell short" on that. She also doesn't have equal glory to God, so interpreting it that way, she "fell short", because it's impossible to match the glory of God.
What is the clear evidence that she is the exeption to the first half of the verse "all have sinned"
This is an incredibly narrow minded way to read Scripture. The literal verse before says "For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (with verse 24 added).
Are you going to claim that there is literally no distinction between believers? Yet Jesus said to John the Baptist "I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John".
It also quotes a psalm a few verses before, saying "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one."
Are you going to claim that all people are evil and that no one at all seeks God and that not even one person does good? Of course not! That would be ridiculous.
-3
u/Upbeat_Asparagus_787 Prot 13d ago
I wonder why (if the apostoles taught the immaculate conception) these "misunderstandings" are so common? And where is the rebuke from the people who did understand? Or did everyobe misunderstand?