A Controversial Review of the Immaculate

[Albion]

It's almost difficult to say "Protestant doctrine" because there are about 5,000+ Protestant denominations with their own doctrines. 50 years after the Reformation, there were already 300+ sects... none of them agreed with each other.

None of the Catholic churches agree with each other, either, and they've been rivalling each other for even longer.

 

[JacksBratt]

She was only sinless because she was full of grace. God protected her in order to create the New Ark of the Covenant.

She held the eternal word within her.

She is the daughter of God the Father, the Mother of God the Son, and the spouse of God the Holy Spirit.

I have seen no scripture that ever stated that she, or anyone else, was the daughter of God.

Nor the spouse of God the Holy spirit.
Nor that she was sinless or a virgin for life. Can you imagine, Joseph, getting married and accepting that she was with child before they were married and then never had consummation of the marriage? Really? Why did he even get married then?

 

[Cis.jd]

None of the Catholic churches agree with each other, either, and they've been rivalling each other for even longer.

Why won't you ever drop your academically incorrect arguments? This too has been refuted in the last topic. Catholicism has no divisions or denominations in it and it's really sad that you still poke this argument around. Anyway can you name any of these Churches that disagree with each other and what specifically is their disagreements?

 

[FaeryChild]

A portion of the Apocrypha.

That "portion of the apocrypha" you reference was NEVER part of the universal canon. Not at Carthage and not at Florence. The canon decided at Carthage was and is the universal canon. However, regional churches used to have flexibility in including books in a broader canon. For example, the Ethiopian Tewehado (narrow vs broader canon). It makes no sense whatsoever to say that the Roman Church "removed" something from the canon that was never in the Roman canon to begin with. Trent defaulted to Florence and Carthage and is therefore consistent with the universal norm.

If you'd like to learn the history of how the Scriptures came to be recognized, a good summary can be found here:
http://catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

 

[Albion]

Why won't you ever drop your academically incorrect arguments?

In this case, because they're academically correct. The fact that you are in the dark, are now surprised to find it out, but don't care to look into it because it could challenge your knee-jerk acceptance of a whole lot of denominational propaganda is what you should be concerned about.

 

[Albion]

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that the Roman Church "removed" something from the canon that was never in the Roman canon to begin with.

It was in the canon although temporarily so--for over a thousand years. But it still is the case that the Roman Church was prompted to redefine its canon only because Protestants pointed to the earlier error.

 

[Cis.jd]

In this case, because they're academically correct. The fact that you are in the dark, are now surprised to find it out, but don't care to look into it because it could challenge your knee-jerk acceptance of a whole lot of denominational propaganda is what you should be concerned about.

Then bring me out of the "dark". What are these disagreements and the churches that disagree with each other that would cause the type of denomination/sect splitting that Protestants have done ever since it was born?

 

[Magnus Maximus]

Inform yourself. Then get back to us and we'll continue the discussion..

I am well informed; My UG work was in European History emphasis on Reformation Europe.

 

[Thursday]

I have seen no scripture that ever stated that she, or anyone else, was the daughter of God.

Nor the spouse of God the Holy spirit.
Nor that she was sinless or a virgin for life. Can you imagine, Joseph, getting married and accepting that she was with child before they were married and then never had consummation of the marriage? Really? Why did he even get married then?

We are all the children of God. That is why Jesus taught us to pray, "Our Father...."

Joseph married Mary as part of God's plan and under instructions from an angel.

 

[Albion]

Then bring me out of the "dark". What are these disagreements and the churches that disagree with each other that would cause the type of denomination/sect splitting that Protestants have done ever since it was born?

As I said, the Catholic churches are in disagreement with each other just as much or moreso than the Protestant churches are with each other. This seems to come as "news" to you, but there are no two Catholic churches that are in NOT in disagreement--and substantial disagreement--with the others, yet the differences between Protestant bodies is often something much less significant. The Roman and the Eastern Orthodox churches don't agree on the procession of the Holy Spirit and it caused the biggest schism in Christian history, one that is still ongoing a thousand years later. And the Roman and Eastern churches disagree on Papal Supremacy and have done so since the start of the RCC. The Oriental Orthodox disagree with the Eastern Orthodox on the nature of God, and the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht disagrees with the Papal Church on the priesthood and Papal Infallibility to name just a couple of areas of dispute. Nevertheless, each of them likes to talk as though it is the only true church and has never changed any of its doctrines. LOL

 

[FaeryChild]

It was in the canon although temporarily so--for over a thousand years. But it still is the case that the Roman Church was prompted to redefine its canon only because Protestants pointed to the earlier error.

Jerome's Vulgate was the Latin Bible for well over a thousand years. This was precisely the reason given by Wycliffe and later Luther to create a new translation: it should be read in the vernacular. The Vulgate's OT and NT are identical to the material that was
*canonized at Carthage
*re agreed upon at Florence
*made doctrine at Trent

There are several other books which do appear in some Bibles in some of the Orthodox traditions. This is true. However, they were never seen as canonical by Rome, i.e. they were never read in liturgy. That is what makes it canonical, liturgical. The Roman Church has always read from the same material. This is easily proven: until very recently, the Mass was conducted in Latin, in accordance with the readings from the Vulgate. That conveys a consistency from around 400 to 1965. Nothing was ever canonized and then later removed.

The "extra" books... say 3rd Maccabees, 3rd Esdras, Prayer of Manassah, etc. have never been off limits for personal use in the Roman Church. They were not, however, read in Mass. Not then and not now.

 

[Light of the East]

Semantics.

You pray to Mary.

You venerate her.

You think she is needed as Intercessor between us and Jesus Christ, as Jesus is between us and the Father. You say it is not worship, but like you accused me of, it sure does look like it.

May the Lord judge between you and me. Let the disagreement end there, or are you not content with that?

No we are NOT content with that as long as you slander us and falsely accuse us of doing something we do not do. I am beyond tired of Protestants telling us that we "worship Mary" and not listening when we say that we do not.

Praying to Mary is not worshiping anymore than my sending you this message is worshiping you. It is communication, pure and simple.

Veneration is honor. Since She is our Mother, we are UNDER OBLIGATION to venerate Her. Remember that commandment about honoring your father and mother?

And we are supposed to be like Jesus. Do you honestly think that Jesus, the God/man who gave the Sacred Scriptures and Commandments to the prophets, would have treated His Mother they way you Protties do?

Do you??????

 

[Magnus Maximus]

The Mother church is the Roman Catholic Church-period

Is for the bible this may enlighten you: and if you won't proof why does the Gutenberg Bible that predates the Prot Ref by 100 years contain the exact same books as the modern RCC bible?

Some protestants believe that the Catholic Church added 7 books to the Bible at the Council of Trent in response to Luther’s Reformation, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.

In about 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was finally approved by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD, and was formally approved by the Church Council of Rome in that same year. Later Councils at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) ratified this list of 73 books. In 405 AD, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse reaffirming this canon of 73 books. In 419 AD, the Council of Carthage reaffirmed this list, which Pope Boniface agreed to. The Council of Trent, in 1546, in response to the Reformation removing 7 books from the canon (canon is a Greek word meaning “standard”), reaffirmed the original St. Athanasius list of 73 books.

Initially, Luther wanted to kick out some New Testament Books as well, including James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. He actually said that he wanted to “throw Jimmy into the fire”, and that the book of James was “an epistle of straw.” What is strange is that Luther eventually accepted all 27 books of the New Testament that the Catholic Pope Damasus I had approved of in 382 AD, but didn’t accept his Old Testament list, preferring instead to agree with the Jews of 90 AD. Luther really didn’t care much for Jews, and wrote an encyclical advocating the burning of their synagogues, which seems like a dichotomy. Why trust them to come up with an accurate canon of scripture when you hate and distrust them so much? And why trust the Catholic Church which he called “the harlot of Babylon” to come up with an accurate New Testament list? Can you imagine the outrage by non-Catholics today if the Pope started throwing books out of the Bible? But strangely, Luther gets a pass on doing that exact same thing. http://www.catholicbible101.com/thebible73or66books.htm

 

[Cis.jd]

As I said, the Catholic churches are in disagreement with each other just as much or moreso than the Protestant churches are with each other. This seems to come as "news" to you, but there are no two Catholic churches that are in NOT in disagreement--and substantial disagreement--with the others, yet the differences between Protestant bodies is often something much less significant. The Roman and the Eastern Orthodox churches don't agree on the procession of the Holy Spirit and it caused the biggest schism in Christian history, one that is still ongoing a thousand years later. And the Roman and Eastern churches disagree on Papal Supremacy and have done so since the start of the RCC. The Oriental Orthodox disagree with the Eastern Orthodox on the nature of God, and the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht disagrees with the Papal Church on the priesthood and Papal Infallibility to name just a couple of areas of dispute. Nevertheless, each of them likes to talk as though it is the only true church and has never changed any of its doctrines. LOL

Are you saying Eastern Orthodox' are Roman Catholic? This is seriously where you base your argument on?

 

[Albion]

Are you saying Eastern Orthodox' are Roman Catholic?

No. Of course not. Nor is there anything in what I wrote there that comes anywhere near to saying such a thing.

 

[FaeryChild]

Yes, there are real and serious disagreements between the West and the East.

What is interesting is the agreement that has persevered over the centuries: faith in the Real Presence, usage of 7 Sacraments, veneration of the Most Holy Mother of God, to name a few of the most important. However, it is not until one gets to Protestantism that one sees a wholesale destruction and outright denial of virtually every important thing that defined Christianity (in spite of schisms!) for 1500 years.

Some Catholics may not be able to say this, but I can: the leadership of the Roman Church has made mistakes. They have committed their share of wrongs and sins. There are plenty of examples from history where those leading the Church have been flat out wrong, misguided, and down right evil. They have, at times, over reacted and at other times, under reacted. I could go on... but these failures are not failures of the Church itself, but are rather failures of those in charge to adequately be the Church. In other words, the failure does not rest in the Church itself, but rather in the sinfulness of those leading it. The remedy? not to divide the Church into a thousand pieces and desecrate the foundations of Christian theology - but rather for those in charge to repent and do a better job being who they are supposed to be. One cannot just divorce their spouse and get a new one every time a person makes a mistake. No, one has to stay with their spouse, work things out, apologize... etc.

It's really a shame. Wycliffe, Luther and the like were not entirely wrong in all of their criticisms - but they were all wrong in how they attempted to enact change.

 

[Albion]

No we are NOT content with that as long as you slander us and falsely accuse us of doing something we do not do. I am beyond tired of Protestants telling us that we "worship Mary" and not listening when we say that we do not.

Now, hold up on the theatrics for a moment. When a person is doing wrong, does it amaze you that they might deny the accusation? And is everyone else supposed to reply to that with "Oh, because you denied it, everything's settled and you were falsely accused. Sorry."

Seriously?

Praying to Mary is not worshiping anymore than my sending you this message is worshiping you. It is communication, pure and simple.

If that were all that was in question, you might have a good argument. As we all know, it's not all or even most of what has been questioned. You're setting up a strawman argument here by talking as though "praying to Mary" is all that anyone has mentioned when raising the issue of people seeming to worship Mary.

 

[Thursday]

As I said, the Catholic churches are in disagreement with each other just as much or moreso than the Protestant churches are with each other.

This is false, as you know.

There is one Catholic Church. If you want to know what it teaches, you can look it up.

 

[Cis.jd]

No. Of course not. Nor is there anything in what I wrote there that comes anywhere near to saying such a thing.

Well, this started because i was talking about the different denominations and doctrines with in the 5,000 protestant sects... and your response was the Catholic church has this problem and you explained that through talking about the disagreements between the RCC and EO. Why would you use the EO in your argument about "different denominations in the RC"?

 

[Albion]

Yes, there are real and serious disagreements between the West and the East.

What is interesting is the agreement that has persevered over the centuries: faith in the Real Presence, usage of 7 Sacraments, veneration of the Most Holy Mother of God, to name a few of the most important. However, it is not until one gets to Protestantism that one sees a wholesale destruction and outright denial of virtually every important thing that defined Christianity (in spite of schisms!) for 1500 years.

Well, that's just laughable, F.C. I thought you were working on something there and then...BAM "wholesale destruction and outright denial of virtually every important thing that defined Christianity." Talk about hyperbole.

Do you think that belief in the Bible as God's word, the triune nature of God, the Incarnation of his divine son, the Sacrifice of the Cross, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and Ascension, the Sermon on the Mount, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, Salvation by Grace, etc. etc. are incidentals?! If not, where do you get off saying something so ridiculous as "wholesale destruction and outright denial of virtually every important thing that defined Christianity??"