patricius79
Called to Jesus Through Mary
Did Mary's Son, the Resurrection, literally rise from the dead?
I know that He did, and that the Mary was Immaculately Conceived.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just like the Jesus said he was literally a piece of wood with some metal hardware attached to it or that he was a grapevine.
I didn't say that the words weren't there. The idea or concept isn't there.
.
It's not.I think that since the Bible doesn't say that the idea or concept of the Immaculate Conception is not in the Bible, your argument is self-contradictory.
What I'm hearing is that you are saying that Adam, by the Original Sin, transmitted Death to all of us. I take it you mean spiritual death. That sounds like the Catholic Church's teaching that Original Sin resulted in the loss of holiness for all of us, excepting the New Eve and the New Adam. I know you won't agree with that, but then what does the transmission of Death mean? (As you've indicated, it is not merely physical death, and it is a Death which leads all of us into sin).
Praise be to Jesus through Mary!
You've argued that if there is no support, no evidence, no authorization, for some idea, then men are at liberty to just make it into a doctrine.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Yes. It's the same feast that celebrates Mary's assumption body and soul into heaven.
The earliest known feast was celebrated in Palestine by the 4th century. Then it was called "Memory of Mary".
Whatever the Ordinary Magisterium consistently teaches isn't optional to believe, albeit a dogmatic formula. There are no magisterial documents in existence that propose Mary didn't die.
Many Catholics mistakenly think that belief in Mary's death is optional since Pope Pius Xll left it out of his definition. He uses the phrase "having completed the course of her earthly life" instead of "having died" probably in light of the object of the feast which proclaims what came after Mary's passing from this world. Still he refers to the earlier feast of the Dormition and the teachings of previous popes about Mary having died in his encyclical. He even cites St. John Damascene and St. Germanus of Constantinople, acknowledging the adoption of the feast from the East. Moreover, he never questions whether Mary did die. What came after the end of Mary's earthly life is the definitive object.
No ecumenical councils were involved in either estasblishments of the feasts.
The name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," because there was more to the feast than her dying and being buried. It strictly proclaims that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven, which is a singular privilege granted only to the Mother of God.
Yes. It's the same feast that celebrates Mary's assumption body and soul into heaven.
The earliest known feast was celebrated in Palestine by the 4th century. Then it was called "Memory of Mary".
Whatever the Ordinary Magisterium consistently teaches isn't optional to believe, albeit a dogmatic formula. There are no magisterial documents in existence that propose Mary didn't die.
Many Catholics mistakenly think that belief in Mary's death is optional since Pope Pius Xll left it out of his definition. He uses the phrase "having completed the course of her earthly life" instead of "having died" probably in light of the object of the feast which proclaims what came after Mary's passing from this world. Still he refers to the earlier feast of the Dormition and the teachings of previous popes about Mary having died in his encyclical. He even cites St. John Damascene and St. Germanus of Constantinople, acknowledging the adoption of the feast from the East. Moreover, he never questions whether Mary did die. What came after the end of Mary's earthly life is the definitive object.
No ecumenical councils were involved in either estasblishments of the feasts.
The name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," because there was more to the feast than her dying and being buried. It strictly proclaims that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven, which is a singular privilege granted only to the Mother of God.
Can you explain how you know which books are in the Bible, if not by the authority of Catholic Tradition, which holds that Mary is the Immaculate Conception?
What I'm hearing is that you are saying that Adam, by the Original Sin, transmitted Death to all of us. I take it you mean spiritual death. That sounds like the Catholic Church's teaching that Original Sin resulted in the loss of holiness for all of us, excepting the New Eve and the New Adam. I know you won't agree with that, but then what does the transmission of Death mean? (As you've indicated, it is not merely physical death, and it is a Death which leads all of us into sin).
Praise be to Jesus through Mary!
Stop. You cannot "prove" something to be true BECAUSE there is nothing to substantiate it.The Bible doesn't say that the idea or concept of the Immaculate Conception is not in the Bible.
The Canon of Scripture was not dictated by the Latin Church, but was established by the Apostolic Church in Ecumenical Council and the Papal Latin Church agreed...
This sounds much like Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity...
We are united in BOTH Good AND evil in this life prematurely...
Arsenios
Stop. You cannot "prove" something to be true BECAUSE there is nothing to substantiate it.
The pope was only asked to affirm the decisions of the ecumenical councils because he was absent from those same councils. All bishops who were absent were also asked to affirm the same. The bishops who were already present had already affirmed the decisions of the councils. The only way that councils became ecumenical councils had nothing to do with the pope, but rather being recognised as such by a subsequent council.Which Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church established the Canon, and how do we know it was Ecumenical except through the authority of the Papacy
Out of the numberless times that Panagia has appeared to Orthodox Christians, she has never referred to herself as the "immaculate conception", nor has she asked us to consecrate ourselves to her "sacred heart". Why do you think that is?That is why I don't agree with the Protestant oral traditions about the Mother of God, who is the Immaculate Conception.
Out of the numberless times that Panagia has appeared to Orthodox Christians, she has never referred to herself as the "immaculate conception", nor has she asked us to consecrate ourselves to her "sacred heart". Why do you think that is?
The pope was only asked to affirm the decisions of the ecumenical councils because he was absent from those same councils. All bishops who were absent were also asked to affirm the same. The bishops who were already present had already affirmed the decisions of the councils. The only way that councils became ecumenical councils had nothing to do with the pope, but rather being recognised as such by a subsequent council.
Out of the numberless times that Panagia has appeared to Orthodox Christians, she has never referred to herself as the "immaculate conception", nor has she asked us to consecrate ourselves to her "sacred heart". Why do you think that is?
She doesn't seem to be aware of that. Have you any idea of the abundance of miracles in the Orthodox Church through Panagia? How many times is it claimed she has appeared in the Catholic Church? I suspect it pales in comparison to the number of times she has visited the Orthodox. From our point of view it would seem apparent that it is Rome who has seperated. Just saying.Because the Orthodox are seperated from her Son's Church....just saying.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?