Immaculate conception of Mary?

[patricius79]

Says you and the Roman Catholic Church, even though you're quoting from the King James Version of the Bible which is well-known for the use of wording that is straight out of the seventeenth century. You have, at least, put your finger on the only possible argument for the immaculate conception--a misinterpretation of the words of the angel to Mary.

However, even if we take them to mean what you say, it doesn't follow that she ALWAYS was 'full of sinlessness," nor did the angel say any such thing to her, so it's still a legend without any Scriptural basis.

I think that is an opinion/oral tradition which contradicts the the Catholic Church, which is the source of the doctrine of the N.T. Canon and the Trinity, which are likewise not explicit in Scripture.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 says that should hold fast to the oral traditions as well as the written ones. Protestantism has many oral traditions--often perhaps in conflict with each other--but no clear way of discerning whether these traditions are the one's passed on through the visible, historic Church united in the Successor of Rock (the Vicar of Christ).

I love the Immaculate Conception, Mary, the Spouse of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:35).

 

[Albion]

You couldn't have posted a better example of what I addressed in my post #150 of the church traditions thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...church-tradition.7925086/page-8#post-69066235

 

[patricius79]

You couldn't have posted a better example of what I addressed in my post #150 of the church traditions thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...church-tradition.7925086/page-8#post-69066235

How so? I don't think we should get into name-calling just because someone doesn't agree with the Protestant oral traditions about our sweet Mother, the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Albion]

How so? I don't think we should get into name-calling just because someone doesn't agree with the Protestant oral traditions about our sweet Mother, the Immaculate Conception.

There's no "name calling" in that post.

 

[patricius79]

There's no "name calling" in that post.

Oh, then I must have mis-read it. I thought you called some people "numbskulls".

Here it is:

That could be, but IMHO we ought not to simply use--without any qualification or amendment--the same phraseology that's employed by the numbskulls who think it's smart to demote the revealed word of God down to the level of their own manmade doctrines. Because it looks like the same claim, I feel it has to be challenged for the benefit of any other reader.

 

[Albion]

Oh, then I must have mis-read it. I thought you called some people "numbskulls".

That's not the post you were linked to. It was #150.

 

[patricius79]

That's not the post you were linked to. It was #150.

I "criticize" the claims made by some people about their own doctrines, which they freely admit are not based on the Bible. Specifically, I "criticize" the following fictions:

1. That believers in Sola Scriptura actually do follow the equivalent of "Holy Tradition" without knowing it or admitting it. and

The Catholic Church admits that her doctrines of the N.T. Canon, the most-holy doctrine of the Trinity, and the Immaculate Conception are not explicit in the Bible. But they are there.

And yes, I think that clearly those who follow the oral tradition of Sola Scriptura do insist on oral traditions in opposition to the Word of God.

 

[Albion]

2. That any idea, belief, custom, legend, myth, or the like that is traceable to even one "Church Father" living at any time in the 400 or so years after Christ and the beginning of his Church on Earth is a "tradition."

"If it doesn't have continuity, from the beginning of the Church, and it's not a belief of the whole church...BY DEFINITION it's neither a tradition nor a doctrine established by "Holy Tradition."

 

[patricius79]

2. That any idea, belief, custom, legend, myth, or the like that is traceable to even one "Church Father" living at any time in the 400 or so years after Christ and the beginning of his Church on Earth is a "tradition."

Who is claiming that?

"If it doesn't have continuity, from the beginning of the Church, and it's not a belief of the whole church...BY DEFINITION it's neither a tradition nor a doctrine established by "Holy Tradition."

Wouldn't that be a good reason to not accept the specifically Protestant oral traditions about the Immaculate Conception, or other doctrinal issues, since Protestantism wasn't present in the first millenium?

 

[Albion]

Who is claiming that?

There probably isn't a Roman Catholic poster here who hasn't done so, if we're to be accurate about it.

Wouldn't that be a good reason to not accept the specifically Protestant oral traditions about the Immaculate Conception, or other doctrinal issues, since Protestantism wasn't present in the first millenium?

It's a good reason not to accept the Roman Catholic oral traditions. Protestants don't define doctrine by traditions, either oral or otherwise, so the answer to your question here would be "no."

That said, don't overlook the message in point 2. It's that these things are not traditions anyway!

 

[patricius79]

There probably isn't a Roman Catholic poster here who hasn't done so, if we're to be accurate about it.

Where?

I think that Protestantism in its disagreement with the Word of God about the Immaculate Conception insists on oral traditions, as in its disagreement with other Christian doctrines as well.

 

[Standing Up]

The oral traditions include those that you won't find in Paul's epistles, such as the virgin birth of Christ ("born of a woman"),

To clarify, Paul said "born of a woman". That's in scripture. Have you any extant oral tradition from Paul's time?

 

[patricius79]

To clarify, Paul said "born of a woman". That's in scripture. Have you any extant oral tradition from Paul's time?

The Bible says that we should hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter.

One of these traditions is the N.T. Canon, which derives from the Catholic Church, along with the doctrine of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception.

How can one know what the oral traditions are which Paul refers to except through the visible Church united in the Vicar of Christ?

 

[Standing Up]

The Bible says that we should hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter.

One of these traditions is the N.T. Canon, which derives from the Catholic Church, along with the doctrine of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception.

How can one know what the oral traditions are which Paul refers to except through the visible Church united in the Vicar of Christ?

So now you're saying the Canon was fixed in Paul's time and had nothing to do with RC Church. That's a tradition we should hold fast to.

What other extant traditions in Paul's time do you find?

 

[patricius79]

So now you're saying the Canon was fixed in Paul's time and had nothing to do with RC Church.

Where did you hear that?

I've been asking for Protestants--anyone--to provide a non-Catholic source of the N.T. Canon.

I agree with 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and I believe in the Immaculate Conception on the same grounds that I accept the N.T. Canon.

 

[Standing Up]

Where did you hear that?

I've been asking for Protestants--anyone--to provide a non-Catholic source of the N.T. Canon.

I agree with 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and I believe in the Immaculate Conception on the same grounds that I accept the N.T. Canon.

I asked for traditions that existed in Paul's time to which we should hold on to. You answered the bible was a tradition. So, you've answered your own question. RC had nothing to do with canonizing the bible, except their own at Trent, which is far removed from tradition extant in Paul's time.

Do you have any other traditions extant in Paul's time to which we should hold?

 

[patricius79]

I asked for traditions that existed in Paul's time to which we should hold on to. You answered the bible was a tradition.

Can Protestantism provide a non-Catholic source of the N.T. Canon?

The list of which books belong in the N.T. is an oral tradition of the Catholic Church like the doctrine of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception.

All of the doctrines of the Catholic Church--such as those about our Mother the New Eve and Mother of God-- united in the Vicar of Christ, are the traditions that Paul is referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

 

[Standing Up]

Can Protestantism provide a non-Catholic source of the N.T. Canon?

The list of which books belong in the N.T. is an oral tradition of the Catholic Church like the doctrine of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception.

All of the doctrines of the Catholic Church--such as those about our Mother the New Eve and Mother of God-- united in the Vicar of Christ, are the traditions that Paul is referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

You just provided the source. Paul. You repeat 2 Thes. 2:15. I asked which traditions were extant in Paul's time. You answered the NT canon.

 

[patricius79]

You just provided the source. Paul. You repeat 2 Thes. 2:15. I asked which traditions were extant in Paul's time. You answered the NT canon.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 is referring to all the oral traditions of the Catholic Church, including the N.T. Canon, the most-holy doctrine of the Trinity, and the doctrines about the Mother of God: that she is our Mother in the order of Grace, the New Eve, the Queen of Heaven, and the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Standing Up]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 is referring to all the oral traditions of the Catholic Church, including the N.T. Canon, the most-holy doctrine of the Trinity, and the doctrines about the Mother of God: that she is our Mother in the order of Grace, the New Eve, the Queen of Heaven, and the Immaculate Conception.

Ok, so again, you believe the NT canon, Trinity, Marian dogmas were all fully present and known in Paul's time.