Immaculate Conception

[PeaceByJesus]

Incorrect. In heaven, in Revelation, those in heaven, the saints, are seen in Revelation 8:3-4, sending the prayers of the living to God.

Incorrect. "Saints" refers to all believers, and offering prayers in memorial (cf. Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15) before the final judgments on the earth, bringing cries to remembrance, is not that of a regular heavenly postal service, as if God awaited the delivery, and He has been hearing prayers long before there were any believers in glory.

That, again, would be wrong. You may disagree with our interpretation, which is ancient, but you cannot declare it's pagan.

That, again, is wrong:

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows. (Jeremiah 44:25)

And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. (1 Kings 18:26)

Traveling in Egypt around 50 s.c., Diodorus of Sicily was struck by the funerary customs: "As soon as the casket containing the corpse is placed on the bark, the survivors call upon the infernal gods and beseech them to admit the soul to the place received for pious men. The crowd adds its own cheers, together with pleas that the deceased be allowed to enjoy eternal life in Hades, in the society of the good." - The Birth of Purgatory By Jacques Le Goff. pp. 45

 

[BobRyan]

Incorrect. In heaven, in Revelation, those in heaven, the saints, are seen in Revelation 8:3-4, sending the prayers of the living to God.

Is this what you believe in relation to CCC 958 "Communion with the DEAD"?

Does Rev 8:3-4 say that the dead are sending prayers of the living - up to God because the living are in communion with the DEAD?

Rev 8
3 Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 4 And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended before God from the angel’s hand.

Rev 8 says nothing at all about dead saints offering prayers up to God on behalf of living saints who are praying to the dead -- "in Communion with the Dead" -

It mentions one being - and one being only - and not a dead saint at all.

the saints "all the saints" in Rev 8 are those on earth who are alive and praying.

Rom 16:15
Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them.

 

[patricius79]

Rather than highlighting and bolding Scripture, why don't you tell us what you think it means??? Of course, you have no authority to interpret Scripture, so it doesn't really matter, but try using your own words. When our people, i.e. the Doctors of the Church, use their own words, you discount them, but want us to heed your own. The Doctors of the Church are, by and large, bishops and such, who were given the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. You may have been, too, but how would we know??

And that's a key point. Only the Church founded by Jesus Christ has the ultimate authority to interpret Scripture by the Holy Spirit, the Spouse of our Immaculate Lady.

Scripture does need interpretation, which is why everyone tries to explain what it really means and uses bolding and paraphrasing, etc.

And Scripture never claims to stand alone. Rather it is the Sacred Book of the Family of God, which as a united historical body knows its meaning.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Is this what you believe in relation to CCC 958 "Communion with the DEAD"?

Does Rev 8:3-4 say that the dead are sending prayers of the living - up to God because the living are in communion with the DEAD?

Rev 8
3 Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. 4 And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended before God from the angel’s hand.

Rev 8 says nothing at all about dead saints offering prayers up to God on behalf of living saints who are praying to the dead -- "in Communion with the Dead" -

It mentions one being - and one being only - and not a dead saint at all.
the saints "all the saints" in Rev 8 are those on earth who are alive and praying.

Rom 16:15
Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them.

The Saints in heaven are alive, Bob. That's what we believe. Therefore, we commune, pray for, the dead bodies, and those whose disposition we don't know about. The souls in heaven, hell and purgatory are alive. Only their bodies are dead.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Of course, you have no authority to interpret Scripture, so it doesn't really matter, but try using your own words.

Meaning i presume that ultimately an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus non-ordained itinerant preachers have no right to minister in the name of the Lord, and any who knowingly dissent from said magisterium must be in rebellion to God?

When our people, i.e. the Doctors of the Church, use their own words, you discount them, but want us to heed your own. The Doctors of the Church are, by and large, bishops and such, who were given the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. You may have been, too, but how would we know??

A very good question, thus please answer/clarify what your argument is.

 

[patricius79]

The Saints in heaven are alive, Bob. That's what we believe. Therefore, we commune, pray for, the dead bodies, and those whose disposition we don't know about. The souls in heaven, hell and purgatory are alive. Only their bodies are dead.

Right. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him. And those who live and believe in Christ never die. Christ said that he came from heaven to give the Bread that one can eat and never die.

Above all, this applies to the New Eve!

 

[Extraneous]

I follow only the words of the Lord and his original Apostles. It seems telling that none of the apostles ever give even the slightest hint that they had any doctrine resembling anything like Mariology.

Moreover, not even the Lord Himself seems to pay any homage to Mary. He actually seems to do the exact opposite in Luke 11:27-28. I see no reason why Mariology has any credibility whatsoever. It not only lacks support from the Lord, Peter, Paul, James and John, but instead the Lord himself seems to contradict this theology> surely Mary is most likely a sister in Christ, but she doesnt seem to be anything more that this whatsoever.

Luke 11:27 (YLT) Now while Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed (happy, favored by God) is the womb that gave birth to You and the breasts at which You nursed!” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed (happy, favored by God) are those who hear the word of God and continually observe it.”

 

[Thursday]

I follow only the words of the Lord and his original Apostles. It seems telling that none of the apostles ever give even the slightest hint that they had any doctrine resembling anything like Mariology.

What is Mariology?

 

[Extraneous]

What is Mariology?

Allow me to rephrase.

Catholic Theology pertaining to Mary.

 

[Thursday]

Allow me to rephrase.

Catholic Theology pertaining to Mary.

OK.

However, I think you are mistaken. The teachings regarding Mary are scriptural in the same way that the doctrine of the Trinity is scriptural. They are inferred from scripture.

 

[Extraneous]

OK.

However, I think you are mistaken. The teachings regarding Mary are scriptural in the same way that the doctrine of the Trinity is scriptural. They are inferred from scripture.

Im a little ignorant of RC doctrine, so please bear with me. Thank you. Going by things i have read on this website, im under the impression that RC teaches that Mary was sinless? Correct? Where is this found in scripture? Not every RC teaching on Mary is found in scripture, so you seem to be mistaken, unless im mistaken.

 

[Extraneous]

Let me know, thanks

 

[Extraneous]

Maybe i shouldn't have asked. I dislike debating things which have no logical end. Forget it.

 

[katerinah1947]

Pay attention to primarily verse 4 here. I'm not sure if this is ever used to support the Immaculate Conception, but I came across it in my reading this morning, and that's the first thing that crossed my mind. I'm not Catholic.

Job 14
English Standard Version (ESV)

Job Continues: Death Comes Soon to All

1 “Man who is born of a woman
is few of days and full of trouble.
2 He comes out like a flower and withers;
he flees like a shadow and continues not.
3 And do you open your eyes on such a one
and bring me into judgment with you?
4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
There is not one.

If Jesus was/is clean, and he absolutely was/is, then Mary couldn't have been unclean according to this verse. But then, of course, we run into the problem of, "Was Mary's mother clean, then? And so on and so forth?"

Hi,

Twenty five pages. I started to read, hoping someone would see who was speaking in Job 14:4.

God never told Job that he was 100% right about God. And Job realized that, after He saw God with his own eyes. (Maybe seeing God is always accompanied by infused knowledge. It was not til then that he recanted.)

God says shortly after that, some of Job's friends did not speak correctly about God either, to the point of needing sacrifices being made for their offenses.

One at least of Job's friends, God said nothing about.

I will look shortly. Who was talking in Job 14:4?

It is Job.

Job never spoke incorrectly about God. That was really the main point to me. Satan lied to God. God called him on it. Satan now mouthed off to God. God called him on that. Satan lied a second time to God. God called him on that. Satan mouthed off again. God called him on that again.

Never once did Job curse God, Whom Job had only heard about. That was Satan's claim.

We got to see some very fun stuff, in this exchange.

1.) God knew more than Satan.
2.) God put limits on Satan twice.
3.) Job's wife was never killed.
4.) God gave us a hint of life after death with doubling everything on earth that Job had, except the number of children he had on earth.
5.) God titillates our minds and hearts, with sons of God, but Satan is not called that, he was merely there.
6.) God also titllates our concerns, with finding the issue between Satan and God, that would cause God to ask Satan such a question, and then carry out that conversation, to a conclusion.
7.) God also titilates us, as to why the reward was given to Job.

Job, even though quite hard on Job, is very interesting.

LOVE,

Oh by the way. Hi. Nice post.

LOVE,

 

[patricius79]

OK.

However, I think you are mistaken. The teachings regarding Mary are scriptural in the same way that the doctrine of the Trinity is scriptural. They are inferred from scripture.

Yes, and the oral Word is primary to the written Word. Christ handed on the oral Word of God about the New Covenant before any text of the New Testament was written. In fact, the New Testament never even mentions a "New Testament", nor the idea of "Bible Alone".

And Scripture says to "hold fast to the traditions as they were given, whether orally or by letter"

 

[patricius79]

Im a little ignorant of RC doctrine, so please bear with me. Thank you. Going by things i have read on this website, im under the impression that RC teaches that Mary was sinless? Correct? Where is this found in scripture? Not every RC teaching on Mary is found in scripture, so you seem to be mistaken, unless im mistaken.

The idea that Mary is sinless is not explicit in Scripture. Nor are the non-Catholic ideas and arguments, such as "Bible Alone". Scripture does tell us to hold fast to the oral traditions, and that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Scripture says that Mary conceived Jesus Christ, our God, with the Holy Spirit, and that her title is "Having-Been-Endowed-With-Grace". According to the Word of God, taught by the Church, Mary is immaculately conceived as the New Eve and Mother of God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

And that's a key point. Only the Church founded by Jesus Christ has the ultimate authority to interpret Scripture

I would have responded to this sooner but some poster resorted to getting me banned for a day for calling his repeated assertions what they were, which reaction is simply another argument against being an RC.

Here were have another assertion in lieu of an argument, and the question is what is the basis for the veracity of your claim? Is it because, you find the weight of Scriptural substantiation objectively compelling, which would thus sanction evangelical means of ascertaining the veracity of claims, or is it because you reason that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth. And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

Scripture does need interpretation, which is why everyone tries to explain what it really means and uses bolding and paraphrasing, etc.

Acts RCs do likewise, and as the RCC also needs interpretation (do you even know what magisterial level each and every teachings falls under, and thus the degree of assent required, as well as the sure meanings of all?), thus RCs often disagree what Rome means (including who are real members).

And Scripture never claims to stand alone. Rather it is the Sacred Book of the Family of God, which as a united historical body knows its meaning.

Scripture never claims any other substantive body of Truth is the wholly inspired word of God, and instrumentally used to equip believers unto every good work. (3Tim. 3:15,16) Thus it alone is the supreme standard for Truth

And Scripture never makes the like claim for the church as a source, but which was established upon Scriptural substantiation and relies upon it, and individuals added to that body conflative complimentary revelation, with its establishment being essentially due to its Heavenly qualities and attestation, like as OT writings had become established as being of God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Yes, and the oral Word is primary to the written Word. Christ handed on the oral Word of God about the New Covenant before any text of the New Testament was written.

In fact, the New Testament never even mentions a "New Testament", nor the idea of "Bible Alone".

But simply because the word of God first was spoken does not translate into something like the Assumption being declared to be the word of God, for we know that Christ preached the oral word because it was written under the inspiration of God, which is not the case with Rome's decrees.

Moreover, even the oral preaching of Christ looked to OT Scripture for their establishment, even the Lord's own Messiahship and ministry, thus He showed this from the Law, the Writings and the Prophets attesting to this to His disciples and opened up their understanding to Scripture, which is not said of Tradition.

Nor was the NT a project of the Catholic magisterium, but they were penned by individuals and the establishment of these as being of God took time, and were essentially established the same way OT writings, foundational for the church, were established as authoritative before a church of Rome presumed she was essential for this.

Thus the written word was always supreme as the standard for obedience and testing oral teachings, with more of the word of God being established as Scripture in conflation with what had been written.

In contrast, Rome's uninspired decrees making oral traditions equal to Scripture under the the novel premise of her ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.

And Scripture says to "hold fast to the traditions as they were given, whether orally or by letter"

Which a SS preacher can enjoin to his Scriptural preaching, even if no one had a Bible available, but under the premise that it could be shown to be Scriptural, versus the premise of personal infallibility.

In addition, Rome does not claim to be speaking under the inspiration of God in teaching oral tradition, nor teaching new public revelation, both of which 2Thes. 2:15 could be distinctively refer to, and thus it is not the same thing as what Rome claims.

In addition, Catholicism cannot tell us what oral preaching Paul was referring to, nor prove it was not subsequently written, as was the norm for anything we see that was called the word of God/the Lord.

And as said, because the word of God first was spoken does give Rome carte blanche to "infallibly" decree even something that critically lacks evidence from tradition "the word of God" and make it a bind belief, over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred.

 

[patricius79]

I would have responded to this sooner but some poster resorted to getting me banned for a day for calling his repeated assertions what they were, which reaction is simply another argument against being an RC.

Here were have another assertion in lieu of an argument, and the question is what is the basis for the veracity of your claim? Is it because, you find the weight of Scriptural substantiation objectively compelling, which would thus sanction evangelical means of ascertaining the veracity of claims, or is it because you reason that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth. And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
.

There would have to be a simple way for determining whose interpretation is correct. I know that in the early Church we don't see people with their own Bibles insisting that their personal interpretation is correct, as opposed to the leaders of the Church. What we see is the appointed leaders of the Church teaching the Word of God, mostly orally, and being built up in unity in this way. According to Scripture we are to hold fast to the oral traditions. The Church didn't disappear for centuries only to reappear in the form of a "Sola Scriptura" Church. The Catholic Church has always been the Pillar and Foundation of Truth and continuously teaches us to honor our Immaculate spiritual Mother, the Woman who is "She Who Believed". She who conceived Jesus Christ by her relationship with the Holy Spirit.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

There would have to be a simple way for determining whose interpretation is correct. I know that in the early Church we don't see people with their own Bibles insisting that their personal interpretation is correct, as opposed to the leaders of the Church. What we see is the appointed leaders of the Church teaching the Word of God,

Really? There was a non-commissioned (by leadership in the historical magisterial seat) itinerant Preacher who more than once challenged the interpretation of those in the historical magisterial office, as did His disciples.

But somehow you think that these dissenting preachers would exclude lay people -who were the very ones which heard this itinerant Preacher and His disciples, in dissent from those in the historical magisterial seat - from challenging an incorrect interpretation by them?

Even in the OT in which dissent from the magisterium was a capital offense, the Lord often raised up men from without it to provide Truth and help preserve faith.

But the reason we do not see NT believers challenging the manifest apostles of God is because, unlike Rome, they did not presume ensured magisterial infallibility themselves and teach things utterly absent from Scripture and contrary to it, from praying to created beings in Heaven to the very basis for the veracity of such, that of Rome's presumed ensured magisterial infallibility.

Instead, as has been told you they established their preaching and teaching on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. We see this in Acts 15 among other places.

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:6-7)

mostly orally, and being built up in unity in this way.

But the basis for the veracity of oral preaching depended upon what was written, while most the words in NT was first given in writing, excluding duplicate accounts.

According to Scripture we are to hold fast to the oral traditions.

You keep trying this only to have the argument refuted! Why do you continually ignore what invalidates your argument and just repeat it? It makes yoru look bad.

The Church didn't disappear for centuries only to reappear in the form of a "Sola Scriptura" Church.

No, the visible NT NEVER was that of Rome, and going back to Scripture being the supreme authority for obedience and testing and establishing Truth claims is a step in the Biblical direction, though not claiming new revelation or to preaching under the full inspiration that Scripture has and apostles engaged in. Which Rome does not, yet presumes to make tradition equal with Scripture, and the church, and church law, the supreme law.

And as also said, the one true church, which Christ promised would prevail, is the corporate body of Christ into which every believer is baptized by the Spirit at conversion, (1Co. 12:13; Eph. 1:13; Acts 10:43-47; 17:7-11) as it alone always only 100% consists of believers. While the various visible churches are or become admixtures of wheat and tares, esp. in Catholicism and liberal Prot churches.

The Catholic Church has always been the Pillar and Foundation of Truth and continuously teaches us to honor our Immaculate spiritual Mother,

Once again a RC tries to employ this simple text to support your RC falsehoods, yet as shown it does not support the church was being the basis for truth, but the church of the living God (versus the dead institutionalized one) supports as well as rests upon the Truth, which Scripture is, and the church was established upon.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)" "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:" (Romans `1:1,2; 16:26)

And as showed to another RC,​

It is amazing what RCs seem to extrapolate out of "church living God pillar/support and ground [hedraiōma: said to be unseen in the Hellenistic Jewish literature, or in the LXX or in secular Greek, or it is said to have meant in the latter fixed, steadfast, or immovable] the truth."

That the church of (though no word for "of appears in the Greek, nor in "of the truth") the living God supports and is fixed on the Truth is substantiated in Scripture, the Lord Himself taking time to go thru Scripture and show the basis for His Messiaship and ministry, and opening the understanding of the disciples (more than just apostles being present) to them, (Lk. 24:44,45) and with Biblical prophets being foundational. (Eph. 2:20).

But the often word for "foundation" is not used here, yet Caths seem to invoke this texts as if it said that the church was the pillar and basis of the Truth, for RCs seem to imagine that the church was like a kind of "big bang" and did [not] actually begin upon and flow from the foundation of Scripture, to which the NT abundantly quotes, references and appeals to.​

All your arguments have been exposed as invalid, while your provocative repetitious mantra for the Mary of Catholicism is unScriptural and disrespectful to the pious humble Mary of Scripture.