Immaculate Conception

[All4Christ]

That's not actually correct to say. Most of the early Reformers did not support Apostolic Succession, for instance, or prayer for the dead, or the threefold ordained ministry. However, there's no argument that Protestant Christianity does agree with Catholic Christianity on many things.

Some of the early reformers did. Lutherans for example still promote the prayer for the dead. Anglicans have the three fold ministry.

 

[Albion]

.

 

[All4Christ]

Whom did you have in mind?

I clarified above. Lutherans still pray for the dead. Their funeral services still have that as an option. Anglicans have a three fold ordained ministry.

ETA: I verified the early Lutheran beliefs based on the Lutheran confessions: The Lutheran Confessions state that praying for those who have died in the faith (usually called “the dead”) is not useless, that is, that such prayers are useful (Apology to the Augsburg Confession 24, para 96).

 

[All4Christ]

I can let this go now. Just please consider this viewpoint when discussing theology. I'm not implying that you have to change what you do - but hopefully this will help explain some of the concerns of those who do not agree with using that categorization universally.

 

[Major1]

I don't know why you always call us a Catholic Church. We are not all the "Catholic Churches".

All I said was that he can't say Orthodox faiths and assume that equals the equivalent of the categorization of Protestant...and I agreed that one denomination's beliefs is not the authoritative for them all - as there are many variations of faith in the Protestant denominations. Because of my background - I know, for example, an Assemblies of God doctrine is not remotely authoritative for an Anglican Church...which is obvious I'm sure to you.

How far from the truth is it that the major difference between Catholic and Orthodox churches is the simple fact that the Western Church (which became the Roman Catholic Church) spoke and wrote in Latin, whereas the Eastern Church used Greek.

 

[Major1]

The Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that Jesus Christ is the only Person who never committed a sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22). So ALL have sinned (including Mary) and come short of the glory of God (except Jesus).

Luke 1:46 - And Mary said: "My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. Mary needed a Savior just like the rest of us. The Roman Catholic Church dogmatically teaches that Mary was conceived without sin. So, the doctrine of the immaculate conception is neither Biblical nor necessary. Jesus was miraculously conceived inside Mary, who was a virgin at the time. That is the Biblical concept of the virgin birth.

If we examine this concept logically, Mary’s mother would have to be immaculately conceived as well. So how could Mary be conceived without sin if her mother was not sinless? The same would have to be said of Mary’s grandmother, great grandmother and so on. So, in conclusion, the immaculate conception is not a Biblical teaching. The Bible teaches the miraculous virgin conception of Jesus Christ, but it does not the immaculate conception of Mary.

You are absolutely Biblically correct.

 

[All4Christ]

How far from the truth is it that the major difference between Catholic and Orthodox churches is the simple fact that the Western Church (which became the Roman Catholic Church) spoke and wrote in Latin, whereas the Eastern Church used Greek.

While we share many beliefs, there are very significant differences. I am now at work - so I can't write enough now, but I'd be happy to point out some of the differences after work.

 

[FenderTL5]

How far from the truth is it that the major difference between Catholic and Orthodox churches is the simple fact that the Western Church (which became the Roman Catholic Church) spoke and wrote in Latin, whereas the Eastern Church used Greek.

I would contend that the differences initially were those of culture/language distance. This was certainly the inital issue as it applies to filioque.
Over time, however, the Orthodox maintained their beliefs while the RCC 'developed theology'.
Both churches would say that there's been no change from the original, that the councils only serve to clarify; the Orthodox Church does not recognize a council as Echeumenical since the Nicea II (the seventh echemenical council 787A.D.).
Many (maybe most or even all) of the disagreements the reformers had with the RCC are NOT present in Orthodoxy (no Immaculate Conception, indulgences, purgatory, papal authority etc) and were developed after the schism.

To your Q, there's no doubt that language differences played a role.
I tend to think the the 'rubber-meets-the-road' issue was that of one man trying to assume authority that he never had and the others weren't willing to give - but that's just my opinion.

 

[FenderTL5]

They are Catholic. They are Catholic in that they share with Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, and other Catholics the basic beliefs and practices that are characteristic of Catholic theology but which Protestants generally have rejected.
But yes, some people prefer to be more specific and separate some Catholics from others and also to do the same with the Protestants. That doesn't mean that those who use the older and simpler model of Catholic vs Protestant are wrong about it.

It's another discussion entirely but to my way of thinking the challenging differences between Orthodoxy and Protestants is NOT were Orthodox & RC's agree - BUT - in the places were the reformers kept the Latin view.

As I noted in earlier discussions, the Eastern Orthodox parish church that is nearest my own home has a big sign out front that proclaims that it is "St. (name) Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church," so I don't see that this linguistic issue should be any big deal...unless, of course, there is an attempt to say that the Eastern Orthodox and the Church of Rome are the same, interchangeable, or identical. I certainly would not do that.

I understand your point and "Orthodox Catholic.." is the official monikor.
I don't sweat too much, except those times we (I) have to keep explaing that we don't agree with the RC's on many of the Reformers challenges (satisfaction theory, indulgences, purgatory, immaculate conception, papal authority etc).

 

[Albion]

It's another discussion entirely but to my way of thinking the challenging differences between Orthodoxy and Protestants is NOT were Orthodox & RC's agree - BUT - the difference is the RC that was kept by the reformers.

That's an engaging point, to be sure. What would you say are the Roman mistakes that were kept by the Reformation?

I understand your point and "Orthodox Catholic.." is the official monikor.
I don't sweat too much, except those times we (I) have to keep explaing that we don't agree with the RC's on many of the Reformers challenges (satisfaction theory, indulgences, purgatory, immaculate conception, papal authority etc).

Sure, but the classifications of Catholic vs Protestant or even Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox-Anglican (and some people add Old Catholic) do not assume that every last thing about all the churches put into each grouping is the same. They're just similar enough to each other and unlike the other classifications to justify the categorization.

 

[FenderTL5]

That's an engaging point, to be sure. What would you say are the Roman mistakes that were kept by the Reformation?

Original Sin and Satisfaction Theory of Atonement, which is the basis for Penal Substitution.

Sure, but the classifications of Catholic vs Protestant or even Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox-Anglican (and some people add Old Catholic) do not assume that every last thing about all the churches put into each grouping is the same. They're just similar enough to each other and unlike the other classifications to justify the categorization.

Like I said, my view may differ but I don't think it's big enough of an issue to qubble over.
I would tend to think that because of the Reformation primarily being a thing in the west, the divide is primarily - and quite obviously - a Catholic vs Protestant thing. Just my $.02

 

[Phil 1:21]

Original Sin and Satisfaction Theory of Atonement, which is the basis for Penal Substitution.

Being unfamiliar with the Eastern Orthadox faith, I ask the following to better understand your beliefs. How do you interpret the following verses? Thank you in advance.

Isaiah 53:6 - "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Isaiah 53:12 - "yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors."

Romans 3:25 – “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”

2 Corinthians 5:21 - "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Galatians 3:13 - "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us -- for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree."

 

[Albion]

Original Sin and Satisfaction Theory of Atonement, which is the basis for Penal Substitution.


Like I said, my view may differ but I don't think it's big enough of an issue to qubble over.
I would tend to think that because of the Reformation primarily being a thing in the west, the divide is primarily - and quite obviously - a Catholic vs Protestant thing. Just my $.02

Yes, it is such a divide; and Luther at the Leipzig Debates repeatedly cited the Orthodox churches' views in order to debunk the idea that what the Papal church was teaching at that point in time was genuinely Apostolic.

 

[prodromos]

Being unfamiliar with the Eastern Orthadox faith, I ask the following to better understand your beliefs. How do you interpret the following verses? Thank you in advance.

Isaiah 53:6 - "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

Isaiah 53:12 - "yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors."

Romans 3:25 – “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”

2 Corinthians 5:21 - "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Galatians 3:13 - "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us -- for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree."

I suggest that rather than derail this thread further, you take your question over to The Ancient Way sub forum. If you suspect that you might want to disagree with our responses, then I recommend you go a step further to St. Justin Martyr's Corner where debate is permitted.

 

[Major1]

I would contend that the differences initially were those of culture/language distance. This was certainly the inital issue as it applies to filioque.
Over time, however, the Orthodox maintained their beliefs while the RCC 'developed theology'.
Both churches would say that there's been no change from the original, that the councils only serve to clarify; the Orthodox Church does not recognize a council as Echeumenical since the Nicea II (the seventh echemenical council 787A.D.).
Many (maybe most or even all) of the disagreements the reformers had with the RCC are NOT present in Orthodoxy (no Immaculate Conception, indulgences, purgatory, papal authority etc) and were developed after the schism.

To your Q, there's no doubt that language differences played a role.
I tend to think the the 'rubber-meets-the-road' issue was that of one man trying to assume authority that he never had and the others weren't willing to give - but that's just my opinion.

That sounds very good to me and it is pretty much what I have understood for a long time and I thank you for your explination.

I think that you would agree that all I have done is to say that the Catholic traditions you just mentioned......."no Immaculate Conception, indulgences, purgatory, papal authority" are in fact NOT Biblical in any way but were created by the RCC for their own reasons none of which were to accept and follow the doctrines of the Word of God.

 

[Major1]

I suggest that rather than derail this thread further, you take your question over to The Ancient Way sub forum. If you suspect that you might want to disagree with our responses, then I recommend you go a step further to St. Justin Martyr's Corner where debate is permitted.

Honestly, are you kidding???

After all the back and forth of the last several pages that have had nothing to do with "Immaculate Conception", some which YOU personally have posted to, you pick this post as the one to not respond to?????

It seems to me that the opportunity was given for you to explain your witness and position.

Amazing!

 

[FenderTL5]

That sounds very good to me and it is pretty much what I have understood for a long time and I thank you for your explination.

I think that you would agree that all I have done is to say that the Catholic traditions you just mentioned......."no Immaculate Conception, indulgences, purgatory, papal authority" are in fact NOT Biblical in any way but were created by the RCC for their own reasons none of which were to accept and follow the doctrines of the Word of God.

You're welcome.
I won't speak to the motivations of the RCC, except that as it applies to Immaculate Conception and indulgences the root of the issue is one that I would presume you share with the RCC. So your rejection of them is likely for different reasons than ours.
Which leads to:

Honestly, are you kidding???

After all the back and forth of the last several pages that have had nothing to do with "Immaculate Conception", some which YOU personally have posted to, you pick this post as the one to not respond to?????

It seems to me that the opportunity was given for you to explain your witness and position.
Amazing!

In post 249, I prefaced the comment by indicating that it was a whole entirely different discussion.
Immaculate Conception, the topic of this thread, is unique to Catholicism.
I did not respond to JayW's post here because this really changes the subject altogether and becomes a discussion between western vs eastern views of the atonement.
So in this I agree with prodromos, it's a discussion best suited elsewhere. The Ancient Way or St. Justin's would be the logical place.

 

[Major1]

You're welcome.
I won't speak to the motivations of the RCC, except that as it applies to Immaculate Conception and indulgences the root of the issue is one that I would presume you share with the RCC. So your rejection of them is likely for different reasons than ours.
Which leads to:

In post 249, I prefaced the comment by indicating that it was a whole entirely different discussion.
Immaculate Conception, the topic of this thread, is unique to Catholicism.
I did not respond to JayW's post here because this really changes the subject altogether and becomes a discussion between western vs eastern views of the atonement.
So in this I agree with prodromos, it's a discussion best suited elsewhere. The Ancient Way or St. Justin's would be the logical place.

I do not argue that distinction. All I am saying is that with all the conversation out sside of the threads topic, it just ssems strange to pick the one post as he did.

 

[prodromos]

Honestly, are you kidding???

Back to your old self, I see.

After all the back and forth of the last several pages that have had nothing to do with "Immaculate Conception", some which YOU personally have posted to, you pick this post as the one to not respond to?????

Which of my posts have been off topic?

It seems to me that the opportunity was given for you to explain your witness and position.

And I directed the person asking to the best place to gain that explanation. I've given you the same opportunity in another thread but you have thus far not taken up the invitation.

Amazing!

Truly, you are.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

NONE of us identify as one church.

You do collectively.