Immaculate Conception?

kepha31 · Apr 3, 2017

StevenBelievin said:
Mary was born under the curse of Adam, and because of that she inherited the sin nature that all people have. The curse and sin nature (of Adam) is passed down through the fathers DNA to both male and female children. Even if you do not believe in Augustine's original sin, this curse and sin nature still guarantees that anyone born under it will be a sinner condemned of their own sins. Mary was not immune to this inherited curse and sin nature. Therefore Mary did sin. She was not sinless. The bible does not say anywhere that she was sinless, or even suggest it. Jesus however had God as His father through divinely wrought conception. Therefore this curse and sin nature was not spread to Him. He is all God and all man at the same time. This is my understanding anyway..

That is a man made tradition, contrary to consistent Church teaching and contrary to the early reformers.

When Fundamentalists study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.
Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.

Perpetual Virginity: Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin." Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

The Immaculate Conception

Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception.

Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.Louis], Volume 4, 694.

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.

"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."
Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129.

Martin Luther invented sola scriptura. I believe in revealed truth as it has been handed down from Jesus and the Apostles, orally and in writing.
You believe in whatever you choose.

prodromos · Apr 3, 2017

kepha31 said:
First, you didn't quote your source. I've seen that lunacy before.

You were quoting the same source for your "40,000", or haven't you actually seen the source? If not, why are you quoting something you have not checked for accuracy?
Albion is quite correct about how many Catholic Churches make the list you've quoted.

kepha31 · Apr 3, 2017

OK, It's not 40,000 denominations. I was wrong. I apologize. Statistics below are outdated by 17 years.

“23,000 or More Protestant Denominations: a Myth of Catholic Apologists or a Documented Fact?”
To summarize the gist of the paper; the following charges were made against myself (Dave Armstrong) or Al Kresta, from Protestants:

. . . you are LYING about your “separated brethren.”

I want to know if we as Christians are justified in inflating information to combat those we disagree with?

The claim that there are 28,000 Protestant denominations is absurd on its face. It is one of the favorite red herrings of pop Catholic apologists, yet has neither basis in fact, nor acceptance by serious theologians of either the Catholic or Protestant persuasion. I have yet to meet anyone who can back this claim by an even partial enumeration of the supposedly 28,000 different denominations.

. . . the usage of the 28,000 number by Keating and other pop apologists is arbitrary and capricious at its onset, and is a red herring in any substantive dialogue of this nature.

The 33,000 (or whatever it is today) denominations argument really ticks me off every time I hear it. I could see some cradle Catholic sourcing a text and sticking with this, but to hear former evangelicals do it just [makes me very angry]. My point? You know better.

Now, this is where the figures ultimately come from. No doubt some Catholic apologists (even more well-known ones) use them as a kind of “folk truth” — having heard them bandied about, and we will examine some serious problems with them below. But that doesn’t mean the numbers were entirely made-up and arbitrary. As we see, this is untrue: they come from these sources.

One may indeed question the criteria by which “denomination” was defined. This ultimately led to my own skeptical position, and caused me to change my opinion only a short while after I wrote my paper, upon further reflection (and to remove the paper from my website). Strangely enough, one person who helped convince me to change my mind was the anti-Catholic Eric Svendsen (who despises my work and thinks little of me even on a personal level). But I don’t care where truth comes from: truth is truth. Eric made a good argument, that I found compelling. Here are a few excerpts from it (“30,000 Protestant Denominations?”) — his words in blue, with some commentary of my own, in black:

I have posed this question over and over again to many different Roman Catholic apologists, none of whom were able to verify the source with certainty. In most cases, one Roman Catholic apologist would claim he obtained the figure from another Roman Catholic apologist. When I would ask the latter Roman Catholic apologist about the figure, it was not uncommon for that apologist to point to the former apologist as his source for the figure, creating a circle with no actual beginning. I have long suspected that, whatever the source might be, the words “denomination” and “Protestant” were being defined in a way that most of us would reject.

As usual, Svendsen paints with too broad a brush. He hadn’t checked with me, or my friend Al Kresta (both published Catholic apologists). He states that this is from his book Upon This Slippery Rock, dated 2002. My paper was online in March 2000 and my withdrawal of it occurred not long afterwards. Granted, we can’t all see everything that is happening in the apologetics controversies. But at least two apologists cited their sources with great particularity and accuracy. One would never know this by reading Svendsen’s characterization (it would ruin the image of the “ignorant Catholic apologist” that he is trying to project). Ironically, then, I was chided by Svendsen’s friend James White for not correcting the figure (even mentioning Svendsen), when in fact, I did so over four years ago, whereas Svendsen’s book appeared some two years after my paper, and he shows no signs of being aware that any Catholic apologist had so concluded, or that they cited any reputable sources at all. Ironies never cease where anti-Catholics are concerned.

I have only recently been able to locate the source of this figure. I say the source because in fact there is only one source that mentions this figure independently. All other secondary sources (to which Roman Catholics sometimes make appeal) ultimately cite the same original source. That source is David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). This work is both comprehensive and painstakingly detailed; and its contents are quite enlightening.

Good. And as we see, this is the work that Al and I cited. Now here is where Eric starts to make a good point about denominational criteria:

Barrett identifies seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations. According to Barrett’s calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism—not 25,000 . . .

. . . Barrett indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them (in Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in jurisdiction. This same principle applies to all independent or semi-independent denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist denominations are counted separately from all other Baptist denominations, even though there might not be a dime’s worth of difference among them. The same principle is operative in Barrett’s count of Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in 1970, by which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.
I accept this (and urge people to read his entire article, linked above, to fully understand the considerable force of his objection), and I reject Barrett’s calculations (as he defines and categorizes them), just as Eric does. In any event, the criteria of the definition of “denomination” is a different question from whether or not Catholics have pulled it out of thin air in order to embarrass Protestants. I am convinced by Eric’s explication of the former, from Barrett himself, but I reject the latter characterization.

Be that as it may, I think we can safely refer to “hundreds” of Protestant denominations, using a cogent doctrinal definition, not merely jurisdictional or superficial (though institutional unity is not an unbiblical characteristic, either, if we want to get technical about it). Biblically speaking, any more than one “denomination” or “Church” is a scandal. The Catholic continues to assert that there is one Church and that the Catholic Church is the fullest institutional expression of that one Church, with other Christians implicitly connected with it to more or less degrees. This (agree or disagree) at least lines up with the biblical witness as to the nature and definition of the Christian Church, rather than being blatantly contrary to the Bible, as the very notion of denominationalism (wholly apart from later disputes about numbers) is.

So, yes, I agree, Svendsen’s clarifications of Barrett’s meaning and his rebuke are worthwhile, and to be heeded accordingly; it does not follow, however, that the scandal of Protestant denominationalism is therefore alleviated. It is scandalous because it entails a false, unbiblical definition of what the Church is, no matter how many of these sects one arrives at, or by what calculation and criteria.

I, as a Catholic apologist, can easily admit that Svendsen is right about wrongheaded definitions concerning denominations, but that doesn’t have any ill effect whatever on the overall Catholic apologetic. On the other hand, Protestant apologists like Svendsen and White (even ecumenical Protestant apologists and other thinkers) have a huge problem trying to biblically justify denominationalism and sectarianism and in determining the internal causes of same (which we Catholics would identify as: sola Scriptura, private judgment, so-called “supremacy of conscience,” the sectarian and exclusivistic mindsets, anti-institutionalism, anti-sacerdotalism, rejection of a binding apostolic tradition and Church, and of apostolic succession, episcopacy, even American cultural individualism running rampant within American Protestantism, etc.) that they have by no means ever resolved or even squarely faced.

33,000 Protestant Denominations? No!

Galilee63 · Apr 3, 2017

Our Blessed Virgin Mother of God works with Jesus, God and The Holy Spirit alongside Jesus, moving from Heaven to Earth (Bilocation), moving into Holy Purgatory on Holy Visits providing Holy Refreshments, implores Jesus for the salvation of certain souls, works Merciful Holy Miracles up in Heaven for soul salvation and Holy Merciful Acts for souls, say on their way to eternal damnation, has been granted and Gifted so many Holy Gifts by Jesus, God and The Holy Spirit to save souls of whom are here on earth and in Purgatory. Put it this way, any person of whom has Blasphemed our Blessed Virgin Mother Mary in any way in the eyes of God our Heavenly Father would urgently require heartfelt sorrow in repentance to Jesus for talking about our Blessed Heavenly Queen of Heaven and Queen of Love and Mercy in any disrespectful way.

It is our Blessed Virgin Mother Mary of Whom draws hearts and souls back to Her Most Precious Son Jesus, to God and the Holy Spirit in conversions and keeping people safe to have them converted before passing over and/or before Jesus appears here on earth soon.

Jesus and Mother Mary work in Holiness together. Together. Always. Now and for Eternity. When Holy Messages are received, Jesus, God, The Holy Spirit and our Blessed Virgin Mother of God speak all together. Always. Never is Mother Mary away not speaking when Jesus speaks to the Hearts of Saints/Nuns, Priests and lay people. They are always together and conversing.

It is Jesus, God, The Holy Spirit our Blessed Holy Trinity and our Blessed Virgin Mother Mary with God.

StevenBelievin · Apr 4, 2017

kepha31 said:
That is a man made tradition, contrary to consistent Church teaching and contrary to the early reformers.

When Fundamentalists study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.
Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.

Perpetual Virginity: Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin." Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

The Immaculate Conception

Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception.

Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."
Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.Louis], Volume 4, 694.

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart." Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.

"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."
Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129.

Martin Luther invented sola scriptura. I believe in revealed truth as it has been handed down from Jesus and the Apostles, orally and in writing.
You believe in whatever you choose.

What about Matthew 1:25? Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after Jesus was born? I guess she told him " but honey, the Catholic church want's me to be a virgin forever so they can keep and teach the doctrines of men."

StevenBelievin · Apr 4, 2017

Galilee63 said:
Our Blessed Virgin Mother of God works with Jesus, God and The Holy Spirit alongside Jesus, moving from Heaven to Earth (Bilocation), moving into Holy Purgatory on Holy Visits providing Holy Refreshments, implores Jesus for the salvation of certain souls, works Merciful Holy Miracles up in Heaven for soul salvation and Holy Merciful Acts for souls, say on their way to eternal damnation, has been granted and Gifted so many Holy Gifts by Jesus, God and The Holy Spirit to save souls of whom are here on earth and in Purgatory. Put it this way, any person of whom has Blasphemed our Blessed Virgin Mother Mary in any way in the eyes of God our Heavenly Father would urgently require heartfelt sorrow in repentance to Jesus for talking about our Blessed Heavenly Queen of Heaven and Queen of Love and Mercy in any disrespectful way.

It is our Blessed Virgin Mother Mary of Whom draws hearts and souls back to Her Most Precious Son Jesus, to God and the Holy Spirit in conversions and keeping people safe to have them converted before passing over and/or before Jesus appears here on earth soon.

Jesus and Mother Mary work in Holiness together. Together. Always. Now and for Eternity. When Holy Messages are received, Jesus, God, The Holy Spirit and our Blessed Virgin Mother of God speak all together. Always. Never is Mother Mary away not speaking when Jesus speaks to the Hearts of Saints/Nuns, Priests and lay people. They are always together and conversing.

It is Jesus, God, The Holy Spirit our Blessed Holy Trinity and our Blessed Virgin Mother Mary with God.

Where is any of the Mary stuff in the new testament?

When Jesus did have the opportunity to elevate His mother and brothers, what did He say?

Matthew 12:46-50

StevenBelievin · Apr 4, 2017

LostMarbels said:
BLUE are my comments

Catholic Catechism #1172

"In celebrating this annual cycle of the mysteries of Christ, Holy Church honors the Blessed Mary, Mother of God, with a special love. She is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son. In her the Church admires and exalts the most excellent fruit of redemption and joyfully contemplates, as in a faultless image, that which she herself desires and hopes wholly to be."

The Catholic source I am considering here is St. Alphonsus De Liguori [1696-1787] who was canonized a Saint in 1839 and proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius IX on July 7th, 1871. What follows are excerpts from the Dignity and Duties of the Priest, which was written as an instructional guide especially for the clergy of the Catholic Church.

Now, if I were to state that Jesus was the divine Son of God the Father, no one would doubt that by those words I am stating that Jesus is deity, no less so than the Father. Please note, Mary is not only divine, but omnipotent. I also posted a screenshot to illustrate the emphases added are not my own, unless specified.

View attachment 193336

[pg. 415]
And St. George of Nicomedia has written, that Jesus Christ, in order to discharge the obligations that he owed in a certain manner to Mary for having given him his human nature, grants whatever she asks from him. Hence St. Peter Damian has gone so far as to say, that when Mary goes to Jesus to ask a favor for any of her clients "she approaches the altar of human reconciliation; not asking, but commanding, not as a servant, but as a mistress; for the Son honors her by not refusing her anything." ...

[pg. 416]
Hence St.George, Archbishop of Nicomedia, says, O great Mother of God: "Thou hast insuperable [unsurpassable] strength, since the multitude of our sins does not outweigh thy clemency. Nothing resists thy power, for the Creator regards thy honor as his own. ...

That right there tells me that God regards Mary as His equal. And Mary is equal to the creator, and Jesus our savior. Mary gave birth to God, intercedes on behalf of her faithful, forgives sin, and by being omnipotent she hears all prayers offered to her.

[pg. 4, Extract from the Preliminary Remarks by St. Louis De Montfort] My emphasis bold.

5. Mary is the excellent masterpiece of the Most High, the knowledge and possession of which He has reserved to Himself. Mary is the admirable Mother of the Son, who took pleasure in humbling and concealing her during her life in order to favor her humility, calling her by the name of "woman" (Jn. 2:4; 19:26), as if she were a stranger, although in His heart He esteemed and lover her above all the angels and all men, Mary is the "sealed fountain" (Cant. 4:12), the faithful spouse of the Holy Ghost, to whom He alone has entrance. Mary is the sanctuary and the repose of the Holy Trinity, where God dwells more magnificently and more divinely than in any other place in the universe, not excepting His dwelling between the Cherubim and Seraphim. Nor is any creature, no matter how pure, allowed to enter into that sanctuary except by a great and special privilege.

The Holy Trinity dwells (lives) in the sanctuary of Mary. In short, all that is God lives in Mary.

[pg. 16] Emphasis from source, not mine.

27. Inasmuch as grace perfects nature, and glory perfects grace, it is certain that Our Lord is still, in Heaven, as much the Son of Mary as He was on earth; and that, consequently, He has retained the obedience and submission of the most perfect Child toward the best of all mothers. But we must take great pains not to conceive this dependence as any abasement or imperfection in Jesus Christ. For Mary is infinitely below her Son, who is God, and therefore she does not command Him as a mother here below would command her child who is below her. Mary, being altogether transformed into God by grace and by the glory which transforms all the saints into Him, asks nothing, wishes nothing, does nothing contrary to the eternal and immutable will of God. When we read that in the writings of Sts. Bernard, Bernardine, Bonaventure and others that in Heaven and on earth everything, even God Himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God has been well pleased to give her is so great that [pg. 17] it seems as if she had the same power as God; and that her prayers and petitions are so powerful with God that they always pass for commandments with His Majesty, who never resists the prayer of His dear Mother, because she is always humble and conformed to His will.

Mary was transformed into God, and even God himself is subject to Mary.

To say no Catholic views Marry as God is incorrect. There is an over one thousand year history to the contrary.

[pg. 18]
The most infallible and indubitable sign by which we may distinguish a heretic, a man of bad doctrine, a reprobate, from one of the predestinate, is that the heretic and the reprobate have nothing but contempt and indifference for Our Lady, endeavoring by their words and examples to diminish the worship and love of her, openly or hiddenly, and sometimes by misrepresentation. Alas! God the Father has not told Mary to dwell in them, for they are Esaus. ...

Cite: Source: True Devotion to Mary, by St. Louis-Marie Grignion De Montfort, translated from the original French by Father Frederick William Faber, D.D., Edited and annotated by the Fathers of the Company of Mary, copyright 1941, published by Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.

And there we have it in black and white. None of that is in the new testament. Didn't the pharisees trust their traditions more than their bibles?

kepha31 · Apr 4, 2017

StevenBelievin said:
What about Matthew 1:25? Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after Jesus was born? I guess she told him " but honey, the Catholic church want's me to be a virgin forever so they can keep and teach the doctrines of men."

Celibacy and dedicating ones whole being to serve God, giving up everything, is unthinkable to Protestants, even though Jesus and Paul taught it. Maybe you can tell me the names of their wives. You make a mockery out of total fidelity with God; consecrated virginity, a Jewish custom of the time. All the early reformers believed in Mary's perpetual virginity until the fad theology of the 19th century started, and popularized in the last 50 years. It is you following the traditions of men.

The "until" arguments has been refuted 25 times in this thread, it doesn't work.

Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool." Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - "up to the point that I come," attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing "until after" I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won't leave Jacob "up to the point that" he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but "up to the point of today" no one knows Moses' burial place. This does not mean that "they did not know place until today."

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul's daughter Micah was childless "up to the point" [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

get it???

Albion · Apr 4, 2017

kepha31 said:
Celibacy and dedicating ones whole being to serve God, giving up everything, is unthinkable to Protestants, even though Jesus and Paul taught it.

Ever heard of the Amish or Mennonites? I hope to live long enough to find any Catholic warming up to that lifestyle this side of a monastery, but I'm not holding my breath.

kepha31 · Apr 4, 2017

StevenBelievin said:
And there we have it in black and white. None of that is in the new testament. Didn't the pharisees trust their traditions more than their bibles?

Being inseparably linked does not mean Mary has any saving qualities in isolation from her Son. Your post means you read into things that are not there. We think the agony of Mary watching her Son die means something. To you it's just happenstance.

kepha31 · Apr 4, 2017

Albion said:
Ever heard of the Amish or Mennonites? I hope to live long enough to find any Catholic warming up to that lifestyle this side of a monastery, but I'm not holding my breath.

It's not for everybody. Paul says marriage is good, but celibacy is better for full time ministry. good/better. not bad/good. Equating biblical celibacy with Amish or Mennonites is just plain ignorance.

Albion · Apr 4, 2017

kepha31 said:
It's not for everybody. Paul says marriage is good, but celibacy is better for full time ministry.

If it were that certain, the Roman Catholic Church wouldn't have allowed it until the eleventh century AD and still allows it in those other rites that are under the Pope that you were talking about in another post.

. Equating biblical celibacy with Amish or Mennonites is just plain ignorance.

Could be. That's why I wouldn't do that. What I wrote was in reply to your words here:

dedicating ones whole being to serve God, giving up everything, is unthinkable to Protestants

That is the mistake I was calling your attention to.

kepha31 · Apr 4, 2017

StevenBelievin said:
Where is any of the Mary stuff in the new testament?

When Jesus did have the opportunity to elevate His mother and brothers, what did He say?

Matthew 12:46-50

Jesus elevates everyone who does the will of God, like His mother and brothers did (or Jesus would not have been born) Jesus makes a unity of everyone who does the will of God with that of His mother. Doing the will of God brings us up to her level, it doesn't bring her down to our level. It's not the "gotcha" verse that Protestants think it is.
Is Jesus going to violate the 4th Commandment by denigrating her, especially in public?

kepha31 · Apr 4, 2017

Albion said:
If it were that certain, the Roman Catholic Church wouldn't have allowed it until the eleventh century AD and still allows it in those other rites that are under the Pope that you were talking about in another post.

You are being ridiculous. There have always been celibates in the Church. A discipline may have been formalized much later, but that does not mean "invented". Blame it on Jesus and Paul. Yes, married clergy exists in other rites. Celibacy is not a doctrine, it is a discipline, and there are exceptions for converted Protestant ministers with families.

Could be. That's why I wouldn't do that. What I wrote was in reply to your words here:
That is the mistake I was calling your attention to.

"giving up everything" means no spouse and no children. The evangelical counsels are poverty, chastity and obedience. Diocesan priests are not required to take a vow of poverty.

Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.

Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus' kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.

1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.

1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.

1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.

1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”

1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church's practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).

1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.

2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.

Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.

Isaiah 56:3-7 - the eunuchs who keep God's covenant will have a special place in the kingdom of heaven.

Jer. 16:1-4 - Jeremiah is told by God not to take a wife or have children.

Albion · Apr 4, 2017

kepha31 said:
You are being ridiculous.

You're back to debating yourself again. No, I didn't respond to everything you wrote, but I did identify what I was correcting in your earlier post. So, tackle that if you wish.

BobRyan · Apr 4, 2017

PrettyboyAndy said:
Jesus is fully man, and fully God.

I believe it is true that: the Holy Spirit's seed and Mary's seed produced Jesus?

For Jesus to be sinless, would Mary need to be either:
a) Saved and or Filled with the Holy Spirit
b) Sinless

I can't see, God in the flesh could be conceived if Mary was a sinner.

The immaculate conception is not about the birth of Jesus.

It is an idea that Mary was born as a sinless being though her mother was a sinner.

The very thing some folks imagine Christ could not do for Himself -- only for Mary.

LostMarbels · Apr 4, 2017

PrettyboyAndy said:
This is very interesting that you said Sin is passed by the father. I never thought of this.

God is a Father, male. Jesus was a male.
Mat_23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Humans collectively are known as mankind. Masculine.
Job_12:10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.

Sin entered the world by Adams disobediences, a male. Not Eve, female.
1Co_15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Albion · Apr 4, 2017

PrettyboyAndy said:
This is very interesting that you said Sin is passed by the father. I never thought of this.

None of those verses prove that theory, but there are a couple of verses that do suggest that sin may be passed on from one generation to another. For example, the verse in which they say to Jesus, "What sin of this man or of his father caused him to be born blind?" Bible scholars, however, don't think that this means that sin can be passed on, just that those who were quizzing Jesus and trying to trap him thought that this suggestion might trick him.

Standing Up · Apr 5, 2017

PrettyboyAndy said:
Jesus is fully man, and fully God.

I believe it is true that: the Holy Spirit's seed and Mary's seed produced Jesus?

For Jesus to be sinless, would Mary need to be either:
a) Saved and or Filled with the Holy Spirit
b) Sinless

I can't see, God in the flesh could be conceived if Mary was a sinner.

What's sin? Disobeying God's command. God commanded Adam "do not eat". Adam disobeyed. He died spiritually and later physically. Since then, we were all born dead, receiving the penalty (Romans 5:12).

Life is in the blood, but we are dead because of Adam.

Christ, however, was Son of God. God's blood. Alive, pure, life. Never disobeyed God the Father commandments.

The part your question misses is the assumption that Mary the mother gave the baby Jesus her blood. She didn't. She had the egg, but the blood was from God. Long ago they thought the baby received everything, except 1/2 DNA, from mother. Wrong. Blood is from father.

So, bad science led to their bad dogma. How could pure Jesus receive pure blood from His mother? Ahhh, they thought, let's make her immaculate at her conception or at her agreement with the angel.

Hope that helps.

prodromos · Apr 5, 2017

Standing Up said:
The part your question misses is the assumption that Mary the mother gave the baby Jesus her blood. She didn't. She had the egg, but the blood was from God. Long ago they thought the baby received everything, except 1/2 DNA, from mother. Wrong. Blood is from father.

So, bad science led to their bad dogma. How could pure Jesus receive pure blood from His mother? Ahhh, they thought, let's make her immaculate at her conception or at her agreement with the angel.

Can you provide citations showing that they believed the blood was from the mother? Sounds like a classic straw man argument to me. Also, "blood from the father"? Aren't you replacing one (supposed) bad science for another? Blood comes from the bone marrow of the developing body of the child in the womb.

Immaculate Conception?

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Newbie

Trust In God

Trust In God

Trust In God

Regular Member

Facilitator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Facilitator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Facilitator

Junior Member

All-Lives-Matter

Facilitator

On and on

Senior Veteran

Similar threads