Immaculate conception of Mary?

[prodromos]

Also, you are saying you are open to the possibility that the Mother of God is the Immaculate Conception?

Personally, I don't believe God has such bad grammar.

 

[Catherineanne]

I focus on that which is verifiably true, not some fables passed along. When I master the written traditions I will concern myself with any oral traditions. In the meantime I am still trying to pefect loving my neighbor as myself.

Try starting with loving Catholics and respecting their beliefs.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hi bbbbbbb

How do you have a certainty of what the written tradition encompasses?

Also, you are saying you are open to the possibility that the Mother of God is the Immaculate Conception?

If there is one thing Christendom is in agreement upon it is the canonicity of the 66 books of scripture. To be sure, some denominations have added other books to these 66, but that the core, the 66 find complete unanimity of agreement. The additional books claimed by others do not have any material effect upon the teaching of the 66.

Although, at best, I consider the Immaculate Conception to be a relatively insignificant idea, I do not rule it out as a possibility any more than I rule out the Gospel of Thomas as a possibility. Possible, yes. Probable, no.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Try starting with loving Catholics and respecting their beliefs.

Actually, you might be surprised at the variety of people I love, including Catholics. I love a large number of atheists, although I assuredly do not love their rejection of God. Because I disagree with them, many come to the conclusion that I do not respect them or their beliefs. In any case, I hardly claim to love my neighbor as myself. It is a work in progress.

 

[Catherineanne]

Actually, you might be surprised at the variety of people I love, including Catholics. I love a large number of atheists, although I assuredly do not love their rejection of God. Because I disagree with them, many come to the conclusion that I do not respect them or their beliefs.

I wonder why.

In any case, I hardly claim to love my neighbor as myself. It is a work in progress.

As it is with all of us.

 

[Catherineanne]

If there is one thing Christendom is in agreement upon it is the canonicity of the 66 books of scripture.

I think not. The canon of Scripture is a whole, not a collection of bits. The 66 books you reference are part of the canon, but are not the canon in themselves; only when collected together.

To be sure, some denominations have added other books to these 66, but that the core, the 66 find complete unanimity of agreement. The additional books claimed by others do not have any material effect upon the teaching of the 66.

Although, at best, I consider the Immaculate Conception to be a relatively insignificant idea, I do not rule it out as a possibility any more than I rule out the Gospel of Thomas as a possibility. Possible, yes. Probable, no.

Nobody 'added books to the 66'. Somebody took away books; the number varies depending on denomination.

The Gospel of Thomas has never been canonical in any church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

 

[patricius79]

If there is one thing Christendom is in agreement upon it is the canonicity of the 66 books of scripture. To be sure, some denominations have added other books to these 66, but that the core, the 66 find complete unanimity of agreement. The additional books claimed by others do not have any material effect upon the teaching of the 66.

Although, at best, I consider the Immaculate Conception to be a relatively insignificant idea, I do not rule it out as a possibility any more than I rule out the Gospel of Thomas as a possibility. Possible, yes. Probable, no.

But that's what's interesting. The N.T. Canon is not given in Scripture. Like the Immaculate Conception, it is the oral Word of God.

 

[bbbbbbb]

But that's what's interesting. The N.T. Canon is not given in Scripture. Like the Immaculate Conception, it is the oral Word of God.

And we know precisely what the oral Word of God is by what means if not by writing?

 

[patricius79]

And we know precisely what the oral Word of God is by what means if not by writing?

Both by the written and the oral word, together (2 Thes 2:15) with the Magisterium (dogmatic authority) of the Catholic Church.

Thus we know which books are in the Bible, and that Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Both by the written and the oral word, together (2 Thes 2:15) with the Magisterium (dogmatic authority) of the Catholic Church.

Thus we know which books are in the Bible, and that Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

The operative word here is "we". We obviously means only the members of your denomination. The rest of us simply don't share or believe your Oral Tradition. It is really as simple as that, no?

 

[patricius79]

The operative word here is "we". We obviously means only the members of your denomination. The rest of us simply don't share or believe your Oral Tradition. It is really as simple as that, no?

Well, Protestants, also, testify to the authority of the Catholic Magisterium and Tradition--and thus to Mary's Immaculate Conception--by accepting the N.T. Canon.

Also, I don't have any evidence that the Catholic Church is a denomination.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, Protestants, also, testify to the authority of the Catholic Magisterium and Tradition--and thus to Mary's Immaculate Conception--by accepting the N.T. Canon.

Also, I don't have any evidence that the Catholic Church is a denomination.

So, do Muslims also testify to the authority of the Catholic Magisterium and its Tradition because they accept monotheism?

 

[patricius79]

So, do Muslims also testify to the authority of the Catholic Magisterium and its Tradition because they accept monotheism?

Maybe. But I would see that as different because I'm not sure of the historical link between Catholicism and Islam. I know that John Damascene claims that Muhammed learned from an Arian monk. The Arians broke off from the Catholic Church, of course.

In any event, Protestants rely on Catholic Tradition and Magisterium--which holds that Mary is the Immaculate Conception--to tell them which books are Biblical.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Maybe. But I would see that as different because I'm not sure of the historical link between Catholicism and Islam. I know that John Damascene claims that Muhammed learned from an Arian monk. The Arians broke off from the Catholic Church, of course.

In any event, Protestants rely on Catholic Tradition and Magisterium--which holds that Mary is the Immaculate Conception--to tell them which books are Biblical.

In light of the fact that Protestants do not share the same canon of scripture as you do, then it is just as accurate to say that Protestants hold to EO, OO, or Coptic dogmas because they also have determined a canon of scripture which is related to ours. The reality, of course, is that Protestants reject your Magisterium and your Tradition even as the aforemented Churches also reject them.

 

[patricius79]

In light of the fact that Protestants do not share the same canon of scripture as you do, then it is just as accurate to say that Protestants hold to EO, OO, or Coptic dogmas because they also have determined a canon of scripture which is related to ours. The reality, of course, is that Protestants reject your Magisterium and your Tradition even as the aforemented Churches also reject them.

I mean the N.T. And Protestants didn't come out of the EO. They came out of the Catholic Church, and not until about the 1500s.

They took with them the N.T. Canon, but rejected the Magisterium and the Tradition which determined the N.T. Canon, and which proclaimed Mary's Immaculate Conception.

However, Luther may have believed in it. I think he believed Mary was sinless anyway. And even Calvin believed that Mary was Ever-Virgin.

I don't know whether Luther knew that Mary is the New Eve, and, as such, must be the Immaculate Conception.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I mean the N.T. And Protestants didn't come out of the EO. They came out of the Catholic Church, and not until about the 1500s.

They took with them the N.T. Canon, but rejected the Magisterium and the Tradition which determined the N.T. Canon, and which proclaimed Mary's Immaculate Conception.

However, Luther may have believed in it. I think he believed Mary was sinless anyway. And even Calvin believed that Mary was Ever-Virgin.

I don't know whether Luther knew that Mary is the New Eve, and, as such, must be the Immaculate Conception.

Well since the Catholic church came out of the Orthodox Church, why is it that you don't submit to their Magisterium and Tradition?

 

[patricius79]

Well since the Catholic church came out of the Orthodox Church, why is it that you don't submit to their Magisterium and Tradition?

Hi BBB,

Because the Orthodox came out of the Catholic Church, and because so far as I can tell the Orthodox don't have a Magisterium, though they do--as I understand it--celebrate the Conception of the Mother of God, and see Mary as the New Eve, and many of them believe that she never sinned.

 

[prodromos]

Because the Orthodox came out of the Catholic Church

Nope.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Nope.

You took the very word from my mouth.

 

[patricius79]

Well we disagree about that. But is it true that the Orthodox celebrate the Conception of Mary and see her as the New Eve, and as All-Holy?​