Standing Up
On and on
Not just that, but they rely on intentionally mistranslating scripture.
This, IC, is one dogma that contradicts Scripture.
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.
And that is how long after the birth of Jesus??? Which should settle the question about how the "early fathers" and disciples all agreed about her sinlessness. In that 1st sentence they state the truth--there is no scriptural proof for their stand--it is tradition only and that tradition didn't get "settled" until 1476 and did not officially become dogma until 1854. I know this will not matter to those who wish to believe this teaching.
That's right. And we can prove it by reference to explicit testimony from Scripture. That kind of evidence is absent from the claim that Mary was conceived immaculately.
In the absence of the Bible's witness, we could not prove that a God--and certainly not our God, the only true God--exists, even though nature suggests to us that there is a higher intelligence.
Not just that, but they rely on intentionally mistranslating scripture.
This, IC, is one dogma that contradicts Scripture.
This sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Very well, but it has to have SOME degree of persuasiveness. I cannot, therefore, make scripture say what it clearly is not saying or string together a series of non-sequiturs and then proclaim something proven. If that were acceptable, we could prove just about anything. We can easily prove--using one of those methods--that God's chosen people are the Americans instead of the Jews or that Jesus wants us to buy a Honda.My point is that the evidence doesn't necessarily have to be explicit to be supportive.
All have sinned, right?
PAX
Could somebody direct me to the location of Mary's burial plot, surely Christians have maintained the burial spot of the only mother of our Lord, especially with all those other children that Mary gave birth to. [ as per bible ] Oh, wait a minute, I almost forgot not one of her children was there at the foot of the Cross so why would I think that they would care about the Mother of Man's Savior. No wonder Jesus gave his mother to His apostle John, why of course Jesus was telling us that His Mother is everybody's Mother. Still without any doubt there would be a long line of ancestors that would give perpetual care for Mary's burial site being that the Blessed Mother was the only Mother of the Savior of Mankind. Heck, never mine, what's wrong with me, nowhere in the bible does it mention the burial site of the Mother of Our Lord and Savior Jesus.
Could somebody direct me to the location of Mary's burial plot, surely Christians have maintained the burial spot of the only mother of our Lord, especially with all those other children that Mary gave birth to. [ as per bible ] Oh, wait a minute, I almost forgot not one of her children was there at the foot of the Cross so why would I think that they would care about the Mother of Man's Savior. No wonder Jesus gave his mother to His apostle John, why of course Jesus was telling us that His Mother is everybody's Mother. Still without any doubt there would be a long line of ancestors that would give perpetual care for Mary's burial site being that the Blessed Mother was the only Mother of the Savior of Mankind. Heck, never mine, what's wrong with me, nowhere in the bible does it mention the burial site of the Mother of Our Lord and Savior Jesus.
If so, there would be a detailed plan of attack. No, it's just an observation about how it's possible to twist scripture to make it fit a predetermined conclusion. Lots of people do it.
Lots of people do it when they apply their private interpretations to it. For example, 'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' or 'there is not one who is righteous'. Scripture serves to confirm what is declared by the Holy Spirit to the Church, that same Sprit who guides the Church 'in all truth' (cf. Jn 16:12-13). Scripture comes from Tradition (cf. Lk 1:1-4). And in the meantime doctrines develop over time, not having originated from perusing a book. When the Magisterium presents proofs from Scripture and Tradition to declare and define a doctrine as dogma, it acts in a public capacity by divine authority with the guaranty of the Holy Spirit. Scripture is and must be interpreted in light of sacred Tradition. Only fallible individuals are capable of misinterpreting the written word of God in accord with their preconceived notions that are at odds with Tradition and historical Christianity.
The Catholic Church did not come up with the idea of the Immaculate Conception by initially opening the Bible and turning to Genesis 3:15 or Luke 1:28. Rather the idea germinated from traditional doctrines that had been passed on through the medium of sacred Tradition - the unwritten word of God - which originated from the preaching of the apostles and the apostolic oral tradition. In Protestantism doctrines have originated and evolved and deviated inversely. The starting point is with opening a book in reaction to preceding teachings of the Catholic Church or another Protestant denomination. It was by turning to Paul's Letter to the Romans that Luther formulated the idea of justification by faith alone. Until then no such belief had traditionally existed in Christendom, no Church Father bore any witness to such a belief, and no Ecumenical Council ratified it; since there was nothing to ratify as a universal teaching of the Church. Many Church Fathers, of both East and West, give testimony to the Church's belief in Mary's sinlessness. This was a belief and teaching that was never condemned as heretical by any general council, since this doctrine belonged to the deposit of Faith: sacred Scripture and Tradition. Only by this time there remained the question of how it was Mary had been sinless and at what point in her earthly existence she was preserved free from all stain of sin.
It really makes no sense that God would have intervened and transformed her constitution at some point after she was first conceived either in the womb or after she was born, but before the angel appeared to her. Certainly it takes time to discern and reflect on the divine mysteries, including those which concern the Trinitarian and Christological teachings of the Church handed down in rudimentary form from the Apostles.
PAX
Very well, but it has to have SOME degree of persuasiveness. I cannot, therefore, make scripture say what it clearly is not saying....
... or string together a series of non-sequiturs and then proclaim something proven. If that were acceptable, we could prove just about anything. We can easily prove--using one of those methods--that God's chosen people are the Americans instead of the Jews or that Jesus wants us to buy a Honda.
That's the kind of reasoning we're resisting in this thread.
Correct. It changed the words of scripture (Gen. 3:15) to align to her Tradition, as even NewAdvent.org agrees.
Still don't understand why folks think that is okay
Could somebody direct me to the location of Mary's burial plot
I certainly do know enough to know that what you've bought into merely because your denomination says to believe it...is not what "has traditionally (been) taught since the first millennium."And I suppose you know what Scripture is clearly saying as opposed to what the Church has traditionally taught since the first millennium.
I believe you must first prove it as a fact that Mary was sinful before you reject the Catholic premises which reasonably support the dogma of the IC.
Enoch, he walked with God and God translated him. Elijah also never saw death. Now, here is a totally sinless person, Mary, unlike them, the only being on earth to have ever been born without sin and lived without sin and certainly far more holy and closer to God than either one if them and the queen of heaven to boot, and there is not one tiny little indication that she was translated. How come? If she died, why did she see death and not them? If they were worthy, why not her? I've asked before and got no answer--Someone of this magnitude is not said to be translated--somebody forget to mention it??
Enoch, he walked with God and God translated him. Elijah also never saw death. Now, here is a totally sinless person, Mary, unlike them, the only being on earth to have ever been born without sin and lived without sin and certainly far more holy and closer to God than either one if them and the queen of heaven to boot, and there is not one tiny little indication that she was translated. How come? If she died, why did she see death and not them? If they were worthy, why not her? I've asked before and got no answer--Someone of this magnitude is not said to be translated--somebody forget to mention it??
I certainly do know enough to know that what you've bought into merely because your denomination says to believe it...is not what "has traditionally (been) taught since the first millennium."
I'd commend Bible study and Church history to anyone who is interested in sorting out the truth of such matters from the mythology.
All right. I'll cite Mary herself who acknowledged that she needed a Savior just like the rest of us.
Not Albion's word?What's more, this is enshrined in God's word which is reliably correct, unlike the various legends of the saints.
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?