Catholics, what exactly do you believe about Mary?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tangible

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato
May 29, 2009
9,837
1,416
cruce tectum
Visit site
✟59,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Then YOUR dogma must be infallible to determine who is in opposition to the clear word of scripture. (which isn't always clear to begin with).
WHO is in opposition to the clear word of scripture would be dogmatic declarations. In order to do this, you must be infallible and/or be infallible on the "clear words of scripture". You have the cart before the horse.
Scriptural dogma vs. unscriptural dogma.

The words of scripture are rarely unclear. Any person of normal intelligence, when enlightened by the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ, can easily understand the vast majority of the scriptures in their proper context, and can be easily educated in basic principles of hermeneutics (i.e. scripture interprets scripture) in order to understand more challenging passages.

Of course, the standard Roman Catholic response to this is, That's why there are fifty million protestant denominations. Also insert gratuitous disparaging comment about Martin Luther.

Yes, there are a multitude of incorrect, unscriptural interpretations of scripture. Different traditions seem to be stuck on different points. Yet they have the one thing in common - that they have incorrectly interpreted the scriptures based on misunderstandings that defy correction, erroneous preconceptions, or eisegetical interpolations.

The degree to which any group is in error is the same degree to which they stray from the complete original meaning conveyed by the Holy Spirit to the human author of scripture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0

Tangible

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato
May 29, 2009
9,837
1,416
cruce tectum
Visit site
✟59,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
What is comes down to is this - we are warned multiple times in scripture to reject false prophets whatever their claims and origins. I have known plenty of false theologians who, having been baptized as babies and received into the church, cannot be expelled from the church for the simple reason that their baptism has made them members of the church and what God has joined, let no man put asunder.
Briefly, in order not to derail the thread into a discussion of baptism, it seems as though you may be speaking from some personal negative experience of which I am unaware.

Suffice it to say that there are false teachers in all Christian traditions or denominations that have become so thoroughly entrenched as to lead the whole group astray should God allow it. How they were first brought into the faith is beside the point.

Infant baptism is only meaningful to those who ascribe meaning to it.
Or, according to scripture, He who ascribes meaning to it.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,310
13,522
72
✟370,037.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Scriptural dogma vs. unscriptural dogma.

The words of scripture are rarely unclear. Any person of normal intelligence, when enlightened by the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ, can easily understand the vast majority of the scriptures in their proper context, and can be easily educated in basic principles of hermeneutics (i.e. scripture interprets scripture) in order to understand more challenging passages.

Of course, the standard Roman Catholic response to this is, That's why there are fifty million protestant denominations. Also insert gratuitous disparaging comment about Martin Luther.

Yes, there are a multitude of incorrect, unscriptural interpretations of scripture. Different traditions seem to be stuck on different points. Yet they have the one thing in common - that they have incorrectly interpreted the scriptures based on misunderstandings that defy correction, erroneous preconceptions, or eisegetical interpolations.

The degree to which any group is in error is the same degree to which they stray from the complete original meaning conveyed by the Holy Spirit to the human author of scripture.

Quite true. I was raised in a church where it was hammered into me that a mere layman should never attempt to read, much less interpret, the Bible; it was simply too complex to understand and only theologians could make sense of it, sorting out useless myths like Creation and the Floor versus useful myths such as the Resurrection. After I trusted Christ I decided to read the Bible and discovered that it was not complex at all and was readily understandable.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,310
13,522
72
✟370,037.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Briefly, in order not to derail the thread into a discussion of baptism, it seems as though you may be speaking from some personal negative experience of which I am unaware.

Suffice it to say that there are false teachers in all Christian traditions or denominations that have become so thoroughly entrenched as to lead the whole group astray should God allow it. How they were first brought into the faith is beside the point.

Or, according to scripture, He who ascribes meaning to it.

I think at this point we can agree to disagree. I always pains me to differ with a brother in Christ with whom I agree on so many other points.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Tangible
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
From what I understand, a sin is a sin is a sin. In God's eyes there are no "venial" or "mortal" sin. If you sin, you need salvation, period. In God's eyes, you are then a sinner. There are different levels of hurt you can cause people, even death. But in God's eyes one sin is enough. One prayer of repentance and asking for salvation, is also enough.
Then you are in complete denial of 1 John 5:16-17

The only sin that is unpardonable is the sin of the blasphemy of the Holy spirit.
Agreed, but that implies there are lesser sins that can be forgiven in the afterlife.

Matthew 12:31-32 The Catholic argues that this passage makes reference to forgiveness after death: something that is anathema to Protestantism. This particular super-serious sin (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) is not forgiven, yet it is clear that Jesus is presupposing that there are other sins that are forgiven after death: which is one of the tenets of purgatory: forgiveness for and temporal punishment of sins after death for the person who is already saved and will inevitably make it to heaven in due course. The passage was interpreted in this fashion by several great historical exegetes:
St. Augustine (354-430)
Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604)
St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)
The Venerable Bede (c. 672-735)
full quotes here
You may not think they are great historical exegetes but that is your loss.
I disagree. There is nothing "applied over time". A christian of 30 years is just as saved as one of 1 day.
Jesus redeemed the human race. Salvation is how that is applied. It's obvious you don't read my links.
The man was in torment that is associated with hell. Even asking for just the touch of a finger dipped in water.... pretty obvious.
It's pretty obvious the rich man has compassion for his brothers, and there is no compassion in hell.

Luke 16:22, “The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried,” Luke 16:23, “and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.”

It’s not hell. The word for hell in Greek is Gehenna. This is Sheol / Hades.

I didn’t say it directly supported purgatory. You forget what I am responding to. This was in reply to your claim that there is no biblical indication of punishment after death. I showed you this passage which is indeed a clear instance of that. The argument for purgatory is more involved. I give many biblical arguments for that on my Saints, Purgatory, and Penance web page. (that you won't read)

People in hell will not be devoid of compassion or any of the emotions. How would you be able to be punished for your sins if you had no feeling? They will feel remorse, terror, pain, embarrassment and still care about the people they love and will not want them to end up there.
Tell me all about what hell is like.

Purgatory: Refutation of James White (1 Corinthians 3:10-15)
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Scriptural dogma vs. unscriptural dogma.

The words of scripture are rarely unclear. Any person of normal intelligence, when enlightened by the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ, can easily understand the vast majority of the scriptures in their proper context, and can be easily educated in basic principles of hermeneutics (i.e. scripture interprets scripture) in order to understand more challenging passages.

Of course, the standard Roman Catholic response to this is, That's why there are fifty million protestant denominations. Also insert gratuitous disparaging comment about Martin Luther.

Yes, there are a multitude of incorrect, unscriptural interpretations of scripture. Different traditions seem to be stuck on different points. Yet they have the one thing in common - that they have incorrectly interpreted the scriptures based on misunderstandings that defy correction, erroneous preconceptions, or eisegetical interpolations.

The degree to which any group is in error is the same degree to which they stray from the complete original meaning conveyed by the Holy Spirit to the human author of scripture.
Among Protestants there are five camps regarding baptism. They just can’t figure out the truth of this matter.
  • Luther (as well as some “high” Anglicans and Methodists) held to (infant) baptismal regeneration,
  • Calvin to symbolic infant baptism.
  • Then there is the position of Baptists and some others: adult “believers” symbolic baptism.
  • Yet others believe in adult baptismal regeneration (e.g., Disciples of Christ and Church[es] of Christ).
  • A fifth position is denying the necessity of baptism altogether (even though it is clearly a command in the New Testament). This is held by Quakers and The Salvation Army.
  • I encountered a sixth position on this board: a waterless Holy Spirit baptism.
So much for the "clearness" of scripture.

How does sola scriptura determine errors committed by sola scripturists?
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
In the ancient eastern church, there were (broadly) 2 schools of biblical studies: the Antiochene and the Alexandrian. Antiochene scholars emphasized the literal, historical method whereas Alexandrians were more prone to allegorization. Origen was an Alexandrian.

But Arius, Sabellius, Nestorious, and Apollonarius were of the Antiochene school and this method eventually gave rise to the Bogomil and Paulician heretics.

Theodore of Mopsuestia was another scion of this school who was never condemned in life but whose works were later censured after his death at the Councils of Ephesus and Constantinople. Orthodox members of the Antiochene school included St. John Chrysostom.

Protestants in the 16th Century would look back to the Antiochene school as their intellectual forbears. That is one reason why St. John Chrysostom has always been unpopular with them.

But a careful study of Church History shows that the desire to be crassly literal lay at the root of all the heresies of the Patristic period. The willingness to be flexible and to interpret difficult passages allegorically has been the usual manner of orthodoxy.

By doing so, paradoxes and outright contradictions are avoided. It also allows one to move beyond the literal meaning of the text to discern larger patterns of similarity between various portions of the Bible.

Scott Hahn has championed this understanding and has pointed out in some of his recent talks on a biblical worldview that the NT writers used allegorical methods in interpreting the OT.

The reformers and their descendants have stated that this method cannot be used 'safely' in the Church because the Holy Spirit alone can do this safely and he no longer works within the Church as he did among the Apostles. This is one consequence of denying the existence and charism of the Magisterium.

Bottom line: People who want to interpret the Bible for themselves always prefer the Antiochene literal to the Alexandrian allegorical. They think that they can be guided by sound methodology which will lead to logical results. They denounce the Alexandrian method as a flight of fancy that may lead to wild conclusions.

The reality is that without allegorization, people get carried away by their method into atomized conclusions that cannot be harmonized with other parts of the Bible and Tradition.

Virtually every major heresy has been the result of being too rigid and methodical in interpreting the Bible while not being willing to interpret the Bible in the light of the Holy Spirit. IMHO, this is the opposition of Spirit and letter, which St. Paul warned against:

2 Corinthians 3:5-6 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, 6who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

This error is a form of Pelagianism where human effort is pitted against the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. What's great about the Catholic Church is that she accepts both of the methods of Antioch and Alexandria. She sees them as two gifts.

When I talk to some (not all) Protestants, they tend to rationalize everything. When I look at Protestant doctrine, I do not see development, but reductionism. They tried to reduce "faith" without the sacraments, revelation to Scripture alone, righteousness into a mere declaration without the person's status itself. I hope I do not offend anyone here, and I'm not trying to, but whenever I read Protestant theology, it seems like it is a reductionist Christianity.

When they do not understand how the Cross and the Mass can be the same sacrifice, they reject it. If they do not understand how Mary can be the Mother of God, they reject it. If they do not understand how a person can partake the sufferings of God so that he can offer his sufferings for another, they reject it. If they cannot understand why a mere man is chosen to feed His sheep, they reject it.

My question is, as it is the same to Ockhamists or reductionist philosophers, why take the reductionist position rather than the mystery? Is it because if we take the mystery, we will have to acknowledge our limitations? The issue is really humility isn't it?

The Antiochene "method" was abstracted from their whole system. What was advocated by the radicals was a truncated version of it that was reduced it to a mechanical method instead of a tool to aid faith. Many were seduced by the Antiochene "method" because it appealed to their rationalism. I think this is why the ‘reformers’ and their descendants have fallen into that trap.

There were problems with the extremists using the Alexandrian "method" as well, but they were always perceived as flighty and Gnostic and so they had less attraction to educated people. Their heresies degenerated into folk practices.
Carried to an extreme, the Antiochene "method" leads to a greater dependence on human nature than is wise. I think it assumes a kind of Pelagianism. The Alexandrian approach recognized that "there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in {OUR} philosophy." Humility is the only way to approach the text. Having absolute assurance in our Greek grammar and our concordances is just another form of works righteousness.



 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tangible

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato
May 29, 2009
9,837
1,416
cruce tectum
Visit site
✟59,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Among Protestants there are five camps regarding baptism. They just can’t figure out the truth of this matter.
  • Luther (as well as some “high” Anglicans and Methodists) held to (infant) baptismal regeneration,
  • Calvin to symbolic infant baptism.
  • Then there is the position of Baptists and some others: adult “believers” symbolic baptism.
  • Yet others believe in adult baptismal regeneration (e.g., Disciples of Christ and Church[es] of Christ).
  • A fifth position is denying the necessity of baptism altogether (even though it is clearly a command in the New Testament). This is held by Quakers and The Salvation Army.
  • I encountered a sixth position on this board: a waterless Holy Spirit baptism.
So much for the "clearness" of scripture.

How does sola scriptura determine errors committed by sola scripturists?
Of course, the standard Roman Catholic response to this is, That's why there are fifty million protestant denominations. Also insert gratuitous disparaging comment about Martin Luther.
Called it!
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Among Protestants there are five camps regarding baptism. They just can’t figure out the truth of this matter....How does sola scriptura determine errors committed by sola scripturists?
Still oblivious as to what Sola Scriptura means, after all the explanations. :(
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

paul becke

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 12, 2003
4,011
814
83
Edinburgh, Scotland.
✟205,214.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Politics
UK-Labour
That's a familiar dodge, paul. "Being awesome" is not in question--and you know this, I'm sure.

A dodge in your opinion, Albion. 'Nuff said ? I can't put it more politely than that. You obviously have no such familiarity, so the concept would be alien to your way of thinking. Just as trying to persuade someone is alien to mine. I think we'll have to leave it at that.

Maybe Our Lady will reveal herself to you, maybe not. But you would need to rid yourself of that dogmatic certainty, for sure. Well, maybe not. Maybe she'll one day just clobber you upside the headamd give you a good shaking, to bring you to your senses !!!
 
Upvote 0

MrMoe

Part-Time Breatharian
Sep 13, 2011
5,744
3,450
Moe's Tavern
✟144,835.00
Faith
Christian
If it doesn't make sense to us we judge it not to be true.

That doesn't seem logical. Something not making sense to us doesn't make it untrue, it just means we don't understand it.

God is not bound by human reason. Human understanding is only a small subset of God's understanding. An infinite God easily acts in ways we humans cannot comprehend.

I think a more accurate phrase would be human understanding. Human understanding is limited, but you used reasoning to figure that out.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
A dodge in your opinion, Albion. 'Nuff said ?
No, it's not, paul.

I say that because you focused on my reference to that reply as a 'dodge' and let the main point go right over your head. So let's not characterize the maneuver that way. Indeed, let's say that you actually didn't think you were doing that when you attempted to divide Christians by saying that Mary is "awesome" as though the reason Protestants don't go in for all the Marian superstitions is because we somehow don't think that she is special and deserving of great honor!

I hope that you do not actually believe such a thing and were simply attempting to score some misguided debating point.
:sigh:
 
Upvote 0

Wolf_Says

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2016
644
323
USA
✟30,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Still oblivious as to what Sola Scriptura means, after all the explanations. :(

It's just funny how your supposed "explanation" of what Sola Scriptura is, is not the same as every other Protestant.

What is the real definition of Sola Scriptura then, Albion?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It's just funny how your supposed "explanation" of what Sola Scriptura is, is not the same as every other Protestant.
All that matters is what the definition is. If you won't take ours, look it up for yourself with, say, some nice Lutheran website or religious encyclopedia.

I can't speak for Tangible or any other poster, but there haven't been any oddball, misinformed definitions offered in this thread by us and I, for one, know by now that stating a definition again and again, as has been done on one or another of these forums this week, isn't going to do any good because those posters who are not as concerned about understanding Sola Scriptura as in poking at it are going to come back and say "I heard someone somewhere define it differently, so no one knows, it's all things to all people, it can't be right, blah blah blah."
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tangible
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,202
9,205
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,159,606.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The true view is precisely what Jesus said in the Gospels, in the parable of the unforgiving servant. He said that just as the king did to the unforgiving servant - throw him in prison for torment until the last penny was paid - God would do the same to you if you are not forgiving of others.

"Until" is an important word. It means "Up to a certain point". It is not a synonym for "forever".

So, Jesus stated that sinners are forgiven their sins by God, by the sinners' own forgiveness of the sins committed by others against them. Indeed, at Jesus' behest, we all pray for exactly that standard of judgment every time we pray the Lord's prayer: "...and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us".

Jesus described the place where those who die with unforgiven sin go. He did so a few times. He called it "Gehenna" (and although Gehenna is not in the Old Testament at all, the Jews knew what he meant because of their traditions. Gehenna is Jewish Purgatory - it's not in the Bible, but it is in the Jewish traditions, then and to this day - Gehenna is Jewish Purgatory, it is NOT Christian "Hell", which never appears in the Bible and is a fiction the way it is described).

He described Gehenna - parched, dry, a place where there are fires and fumes and decay. The rich man was suffering there, looking across the black chasm at Lazarus, who was with Abraham in Gan Eden (Jewish Paradise).

So, that is what Purgatory is. Purgatory is Gehenna, just exactly as Jesus described it.

When you die, you do not go immediately to "Heaven" (nobody actually EVER goes to Heaven). Nor do you go to Hell (nobody actually ever goes to Hell either). Your body falls back to dust. Your spirit (not your soul - your soul is the unity of your body and your spirit) proceeds into Sheol (Hebrew), Greek Hades - the Underworld. There, if you have died in a state of grace, you proceed directly to Gan Eden, Paradise in Greek. If you are not in a state of grace, if you have unforgiven sins, you proceeded into Gehenna, which is Purgatory, where you remain for an indeterminate period of cleansing, "until the last penny is paid".

Jewish tradition systematizes the time spent in Gehenna - Catholic tradition does not, other than to note that it is proportional. Jewish and Catholic tradition both recognize that the prayers of the living in remembrance of their spirits of the dead, may result in clemency.

In any case, the spirit remains in Gehenna UNTIL the last penny of due debt is paid, and then - assuming the world has not yet ended - proceeds to Gan Eden.

At the end of the world, ever tomb is opened and all of the spirits are called forth from Gehenna and Gan Eden, from Purgatory and Paradise, back into bodies. This is the Resurrection. It is immediately followed by final judgment. Those who pass that may enter into one of the gates of the City of God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down OUT of Heaven to Earth, but is not actually IN Heaven. This is "Heaven", this City of God on Earth (but really it's not Heaven - it comes down out of Heaven to the new earth.).

Those who fail judgment are thrown into the Lake of Fire for the second death. If one wishes to call the Lake of Fire "Hell", one can, but the Scriptures don't.

If one wants to call Gehenna "Hell", as the Scriptures sometimes do, that's ok, but then it must be recognized that Hell is not eternal - Purgatory is Hell in that case, so just call it Gehenna, as Jesus did, and be done with it.

The problem with "Hell" is that it conflates four different things, and add assumptions that come from Norse paganism but that are not actually revealed.

The problem with "Heaven" is that the word is actually "Sky", and Jesus did not reveal that people go to live forever in the sky, but that the City of God comes OUT of the sky to the remade earth, and people live THERE after the Resurrection.

That is the Biblical Gehenna, and City of God, and sky, and Paradise, and the pre-resurrection parts of that mesh with the Jewish traditions of Gehenna and Gan Eden. Jesus was not giving a new revelation regarding Gehenna or paying the debt of unforgiven sin there. Everybody knew what he meant then.

The City of God/End of the World/Resurrection/Final Judgment - these are new revelations, and they put a final end to both Paradise/Gan Eden AND Purgatory/Gehenna, but calling forth all spirits, back into bodies, for a final judgment in the flesh.

There, that answers your question.

Catholic terminology generally conflates Gehenna, the Lake of Fire and Hell, and conflates Paradise, the City of God, and Heaven. Catholic terminology also generally conflates spirit and soul.

All of those conflations do not obscure the message: which is what you have to do to avoid the bad places and get to the good places. What gets where and when is a bit muddled in the standard way of talking, but the ultimate destination and how to get there is what it is all about, not each paving stone on the path. And Catholicism speaks expertly on that, because it has been revealed.

Unknown stuff that isn't revealed, such as the exact inner workings of the Trinity, are areas of speculation for everybody, Catholics included.

Though I responded previously, I just wanted to say more clearly that we agree fully on this, and also I think that is the norm, the typical situation, now. This is a very well written summary, and it even helped clarify a couple of things also. Yes, definitely "the ultimate destination and how to get there is what it is all about, not each paving stone on the path", and that is in a way a key point for all such discussions here, because everyone's more key goal has to be the already full time job of obeying Christ. We remember Paul's wording "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears."
 
Upvote 0

paul becke

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 12, 2003
4,011
814
83
Edinburgh, Scotland.
✟205,214.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Politics
UK-Labour
No, it's not, paul.

I say that because you focused on my reference to that reply as a 'dodge' and let the main point go right over your head. So let's not characterize the maneuver that way. Indeed, let's say that you actually didn't think you were doing that when you attempted to divide Christians by saying that Mary is "awesome" as though the reason Protestants don't go in for all the Marian superstitions is because we somehow don't think that she is special and deserving of great honor!

I hope that you do not actually believe such a thing and were simply attempting to score some misguided debating point.
:sigh:

Albie, I thought I'd made it clear : I'm not interested in debating with you. But I'm tired of hearing your vapidly-dismissive 'No true Scotsman.....' nonsense. You evoke a vast multitude of people you know, whom my contentions would convuisle with laughter at their manifest absurdity, their falsity being universally common knowledge. By all means try to refute my posts, but please don't expect me to take your posts seriously. I'm sure you're a nice chap, so it's nothing personal.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It's just funny how your supposed "explanation" of what Sola Scriptura is, is not the same as every other Protestant.
Then please 'lift a finger' and read back through the earlier posts on this thread...or look it up online. This is not something that's terribly elusive.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,310
13,522
72
✟370,037.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Albie, I thought I'd made it clear : I'm not interested in debating with you. But I'm tired of hearing your vapidly-dismissive 'No true Scotsman.....' nonsense. You evoke a vast multitude of people you know, whom my contentions would convuisle with laughter at their manifest absurdity, their falsity being universally common knowledge. By all means try to refute my posts, but please don't expect me to take your posts seriously. I'm sure you're a nice chap, so it's nothing personal.

Paulie, Mocking is a sure sign of defeat. If that is all you can do, then admit defeat and find something more interesting to do with your time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

paul becke

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jul 12, 2003
4,011
814
83
Edinburgh, Scotland.
✟205,214.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Politics
UK-Labour
Paulie, Mocking is a sure sign of defeat. If that is all you can do, then admit defeat and find something more interesting to do with your time.

Alas, anything but the wise words you think your words to b bbbbbbb. In fact, plain vacuous, because false.

Even if I valued Albie's opinions somewhat, it would never be to the extent of wishing to probe them further. Sorry. As it is, just reading them, I know, is not going to seem time well-spent.

Indeed, in a sense, I was admitting defeated by boredom at feeling I should repond to Albie's juvenile invocations of what is actually a minority view of Our Lady's stature, in relation to our Catholic world population that does reverence Our Lady.

Incidentally, in the Magnificat, we read the words of Our Lady : 'All generations shall call me blessed.' When was the last time you blessed her ?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.