Peanut Gallery: The Immaculate conception of Mary!

[katholikos]

no, it's not. Every typology you offered is flawed.

Eve... wife of Adam.

new Adam, Christ... new eve, Mother of Adam? flawed typology.....

As I said, you are too simplistic. Thats like saying that because the Old Testament said the Messiah would be named "Emmanual" that Jesus could not be the Messiah because his name is not Emmanual.

Thats the kind of ridiculous conclusions you come to when you read scriptures like a Fundie - too literally.

In fact, that literal reading is making you take Genesis 1 & 2 word-for-word literally too, which no serious student of scripture does. And that is also skewing your understanding of "Adam and Eve."

 

[Uphill Battle]

ah. No serious student accepts Genesis as literal.

welcome to the wonderful world of Catholic relativity.

more of the "if you don't agree, you just don't get it." at least, until this point, I EXIST in your little self manufactured world. I know it won't be long until I'm a figment of your imagination too.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As I said, you are too simplistic. Thats like saying that because the Old Testament said the Messiah would be named "Emmanual" that Jesus could not be the Messiah because his name is not Emmanual.

Thats the kind of ridiculous conclusions you come to when you read scriptures like a Fundie - too literally.

In fact, that literal reading is making you take Genesis 1 & 2 word-for-word literally too, which no serious student of scripture does. And that is also skewing your understanding of "Adam and Eve."

Actually, it says you will CALL Him Immanuel - it's a title. And we do still use that title today, but let's TRY to not follow all these diversions...


Actually, our differences here are not a matter of how "literal" one takes things, it's whether the authority is Scripture or self. Obviously ANYONE can claims that ANYTHING is "meant" by Scripture in those invisible words they admit aren't there. If you'll permit the Mormon to substantiate all his unique dogmas with Scriptures "deeply and spiritually read" (as they'd put it), "seeing" things even they admit aren't literally "there" then I suppose in all fairness we should allow you the same. But, of course, you don't. (There's that "goose/gander" proverb again!) , but again, I think you are missing the point. One could say, "I interpret Jesus' words of 'other sheep' to mean Native Americans" in which case, it's an INTERPRETATION of the text, not the text. It's a completely, totally different issue to say, "Scripture says Jesus will add the American Natives to His Church and found His Church in the Americas!" No. Such is one fallible personal INTERPRETATION of a text - the text says no such thing. This is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis that continually keeps being mentioned but seems to go right over the head of Catholics and Mormons because they equate the opinions of self with the words of God, requiring God to agree with them.







.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, here is something that I do know for sure, Jesus did not have brothers and sisters. Back then, there were no words for cousins, nephews or neices... back then, your cousins were your brothers and sisters. Also, Joseph is to believed to have had children from his first marriage and why? Because the Bible does say, Joseph was a widower before marrying Mary.

Although this is off the topic of this thread, I feel that this merits a response. Please read my thread, "Brothers and Sisters, Oh My" before replying. After doing so, please post your response there to the following observations on my part:

1. How is it that you know for sure that Jesus did not have brothers and sisters?
2. How do you explain the specific Greek words used in the New Testament and which are translated as cousins, nephews, and nieces?
3. Please cite biblical sources for your allegations that Josephs was believed to have had children from his (alleged) first marriage.
4. Where does the Bible state that Joseph was a widower before marrying Mary?

Thank you.

 

[BreadAlone]

Then that would apply to Jesus as a man? I believe that Jesus was sinless and came from a sinless vessel.

Except..Jesus was God.

Co is another expression for helping. In other words, when we share the gospel and are apart of leading someone to Christ, are we helping a person to learn about Christ and the gift of Salvation? And thus, the Holy Spirit convicts the heart? Are not we helping spread the gospel? That is what the "Co" means... we have no power to save, only Jesus can save, but we help bring people to Christ when we share the gospel of Christ and then move out of the way so the Holy Spirit can stir the heart.

Then there's no reason to call her anything with "co", since it's something we all are. It's just adding honor and worship when none is due.

How would that make her Jesus' wife. That comment doesn't make sense to me at all. Please explain it.

Because Eve was Adam's Wife, not his Mother..

Well, here is something that I do know for sure, Jesus did not have brothers and sisters. Back then, there were no words for cousins, nephews or neices... back then, your cousins were your brothers and sisters. Also, Joseph is to believed to have had children from his first marriage and why? Because the Bible does say, Joseph was a widower before marrying Mary.

Whether or not it means brothers (it may, it may not) I wasn't referring to THOSE brothers of Christ. I was referring to you and I. (And quite contrary to what you implied, it does not say that Joseph was a Widower.)

Do you realize that even Luther believed in Mary's Immaculate Conception? Maybe I should go look up his work on this... maybe his own words might be helpful to you. Do you also realize that it has only been the last 200 years that some of Christianity has rejected the dogma of Mary's Immaculate conception? That says volumes to me. How can the Church(es) be wrong and then the new modern churches be right? Sorry, I'll stick with history on this one.

Unless you believe that Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Protestantism are but 200 years old..this statement is false. Furthermore, while there were ECF's who supported the idea..there were also those WHO DID NOT. (And I'll further note that Catholics THEMSELVES did not attribute this doctrine as dogma until 1854..)

 

[D'Ann]

Although this is off the topic of this thread, I feel that this merits a response. Please read my thread, "Brothers and Sisters, Oh My" before replying. After doing so, please post your response there to the following observations on my part:

1. How is it that you know for sure that Jesus did not have brothers and sisters?
2. How do you explain the specific Greek words used in the New Testament and which are translated as cousins, nephews, and nieces?
3. Please cite biblical sources for your allegations that Josephs was believed to have had children from his (alleged) first marriage.
4. Where does the Bible state that Joseph was a widower before marrying Mary?

Thank you.

I know that you take Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 to prove that Mary gave birth to at least 4 other sons, James supposedly being the eldest after Jesus.
Because I don’t know how to explain this in my own words, I’ve pieced together from a site some things that I hope will help explain why Catholics believe that James was not a sibling brother of Jesus or that Jesus had any other siblings by blood of Mary.


There are two explanations given by the ancient Church regarding the "brothers" of Jesus ---that is, the Epiphanian view of the Greek fathers (in which the “brothers” are said to be the sons of Joseph from a marriage previous to that with Mary) vs. the Hieronymian view of St. Jerome and the Latin fathers (in which the term "brother" refers to any male relative --a common expression among ancient Jews. (St. Jerome was an early Church Father).

Indeed, given that the Epiphanian view precedes that of Jerome, making James a clear son of St. Joseph, some Christians argue that Jerome's explanation (in which "brother" is merely a Jewish expression for any blood relative) is unfounded and contradictory to 'older' Christian tradition. Yet, there are two essential problems with this position. Firstly, the Epiphanian view (in which James is the son of Joseph by a previous marriage) is contradicted by Scripture itself, which depicts the mother of James and his brother Joseph / Jose (per Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3) still alive and present at the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus (see: Matt 27:56, 27:61, 28:1, and Mark 15:40, 15:47, and 16:1). Given that this mother of James and Joseph / Jose is clearly a different woman than Jesus' mother Mary, the only way that St. Joseph could be the father of James is if he were polygamous; and there is, of course, no tradition about that.


Secondly, one must keep in mind that the Greek fathers, due to their very passionate opposition to Judaizing influences in the East, held a very strong disdain for Jewish culture and had very little direct contact with it. St. Jerome, on the other hand, was proficient in Hebrew and Aramaic, had very close relationships with Jews, and employed several Jewish rabbis to help with his translation of the Old Testament into Latin. Thus, while his explanation for James and the other so-called "brothers" is indeed later than that of Epiphanius and the Greek fathers, it is also far less ignorant of Jewish culture and of the extensive Jewish sensibilities found all throughout New Testament literature. Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that Jerome's explanation for the identity of James and the other "brothers" is not only more likely, but the only possible solution. The older, Epiphanian view of the Greek fathers is thereby exposed as merely a quick-and-easy pastoral solution intended for Gentile Christians who were ignorant of Jewish cultural terminology. In other words, it was the most efficient way to protect the authentic Apostolic tradition that Mary was a life-long virgin. If the "brothers" could not be her children, it was natural to assume that they must be the offspring of St. Joseph and some other woman --that is, a previous wife. And, again, this solution was offered for Gentiles who had no idea that Jews used the term "brother" in a non-literal sense.


So, in discrediting (or, perhaps we should say: properly classifying) the Epiphanian view, we come to the first major problem with some Christians’ depiction of James –namely, the fact that James (according to Matt 27:56, etc.) had a different mother than that of Jesus (a woman who John 19:25 refers to as the “sister” / tribal relative of Jesus’ mother Mary; and a woman who is married to, not St. Joseph, but someone named Clopas).


The second principal reason why James could not be the son of Joseph is because ancient sources (sources cited by some Christians to support James’ important leadership in the early Church) clearly depict him as a Levite –that is, a member of the Jewish priestly caste. For example, in the early 2nd Century, St. Hegessipus writes:
“He alone was permitted to enter into the Holy Place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the Temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people …” (Hegessipus “Memoirs” in Eusebius, H.E., Book II, Chapter 23).


Only Levites (that is, Jewish priests) were permitted to enter the Holy Place of the Temple. It was unlawful for regular Jews to do so. If James were the son of Joseph, he could not be a Levite, but would have been a regular Jew / Judahite of the house of David, which was St. Joseph’s lineage (Luke 1:27). And so, this alone proves that James could not have been Joseph’s son. Rather, as we know from Luke 1:5 & 1:36, it was Mary who possessed Levitical relatives; and this is supported by John 19:25, which depicts James’ mother as the “sister” (that is, tribal relative) of Mary.


It’s important that James’ Levitical heritage is not overlooked. Another point that some Christians make or argue about James is his role as an important leader in the early Church, the head of the Christian community in Jerusalem once the Apostles set out to evangelize other lands. As some Christians argument goes, James presided over the Jerusalem church because he was the sibling of Jesus –a custom, so they claim, which was very typical among Semitic religious societies (such as when Mohammad’s closest relatives succeeded to the leadership of Islam). However, in making this argument, Some Christians do not notice what it clearly implies – namely, that it would make James part of a royal dynasty, and so Jesus’ Messianic heir! In other words, if James were the son of St. Joseph (through whom Jesus legally inherited His Messianic claim as Son of David –the King of Israel), then he too would be of royal blood and his leadership in the Church would imply more than just mere succession, but rather inheritance!

Yet, this idea is clearly discredited once we look at Scripture and the other primary sources. For example, all throughout the witness of Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria, there is not the slightest mention of any Davidic or royal connections to James. Rather, again and again, James is merely referred to as “the Just One” (“the Righteous Man” and nowhere is his distinction from Jesus’ Messianic credentials more clearly illustrated than in Hegesippus’ account of James’ martyrdom, where we are told: "The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: ‘Thou, Just One, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the Crucified One, declare to us, what is the Gate of Jesus?’ And he answered with a loud voice, ‘Why do you ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He Himself sits in Heaven at the Right Hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of Heaven.’ And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, 'Hosanna to the Son of David,' these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, …'Oh! oh! the Righteous Man is also in error.' (Hegessipus “Memoirs” in Eusebius, H.E., Book II, Chapter 23).


Notice how the people of Jerusalem hail Jesus as the “Son of David,” whereas there is not the slightest hint that James too is of royal, Davidic blood. Rather, he is merely “the Just One” –a particularly righteous Jew, and not a participant in a Messianic dynasty –something that would have to be the case if James were indeed Jesus’ sibling.
Also, when we look at Scripture itself, the implausible nature of James’ leadership being based on a sibling relationship with Jesus, the Messiah, becomes even more pronounced. For, in Acts 12:1-17, we are told about how King Herod Agrippa came to the throne of Judea and began to persecute the leaders of the Church. The Apostle James bar-Zebedee is killed (Acts 12:2), and Peter is arrested and marked for death, only to be miraculously freed by an angel (Acts 12:5-12). From this point on, the Apostles no longer operate out of Jerusalem, but leave James the Just in charge of the church there (Acts 12:17).

However, if King Herod Agrippa is targeting the leaders of the Church (and doing so because their worship of a risen Messiah threatened his own royal legitimacy), then the last person one would leave in control of the Jerusalem church would be the literal brother of Jesus Christ! And why? Because this would make James a very real and tangible rival to Herod’s royal throne –the blood heir and successor to King Jesus. Indeed, if anyone would have to flee Judea because of the rise of King Herod Agrippa, it would not be the Apostles, but another Davidic heir – the very thing that James would be if he were the son of Joseph and literal sibling of Jesus Christ. The last, and probably most striking reason why James could not possibly be the child of Joseph and Mary is, strangely enough, James’ own reputation for extreme holiness. Of this, Hegessipus also writes: “He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Savior to the present day ….He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath….Because of his exceeding great righteousness he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, ‘Bulwark of the People’ and ‘Justice,’ in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him” (Hegessipus “Memoirs” in Eusebius, H.E., Book II, Chapter 23).

Now, here, it is most significant to point out that the New Testament never refers to James as the “son of Joseph.” Rather, whether alone or in the company of the others, he is always called the “brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19, 1 Corinth 9:5, etc.). However, since he was reputed to be so incredibly holy, if he truly were the son of Joseph and Mary, it is highly unlikely, if not wholly impossibly, that Scripture would neglect to point out that he and Jesus had different fathers ---that James, unlike Jesus, was merely the son of Joseph and not of Divine parentage. For, if James was reputed for such extraordinary holiness, and if he came from the same womb that bore the Son of God, would it not be natural for early believers to suspect that James too was sired by the Almighty? Yet, the fact that the New Testament offers no apologetic against this natural suspicion illustrates quite clearly that there was no need to do so. And there was no need to do so because James did not come from the same womb as Jesus. If he did, then the New Testament would have to make clear that he was the natural son of Joseph. The mere fact that this issue is never raised speaks volumes about James’ true relationship to the Lord.

I hope this helps.
I have Mark Bonocore's permission to post any of his work in full context.

Resource: http://www.catholic-legate.com/
Mark Bonocore is a friend of mine too. J

 

[D'Ann]

Except..Jesus was God.

Amen. And because Jesus was God and because God cannot touch anything that is unholy or unpure, even more so, Mary had to be without sin. Please read what I posted above. You will like it. It will explain in great detail much more than I could ever do myself.

Then there's no reason to call her anything with "co", since it's something we all are. It's just adding honor and worship when none is due.

That is an option that we all have. I just learned a bit more about the teaching myself. Catholics have an option if they embrace the teaching on Mary's Co-Redemptrix or not.

Because Eve was Adam's Wife, not his Mother..

But Mary does represent succeeding where Eve failed. She obeyed God and did not fall into temptation. Please read the above writing post. It explains this much more better than I can.

Whether or not it means brothers (it may, it may not) I wasn't referring to THOSE brothers of Christ. I was referring to you and I. (And quite contrary to what you implied, it does not say that Joseph was a Widower.)

Jesus is our Lord and Savior. You know what, you are right about the Bible not referring to Joseph as a being a widow. That was my misunderstanding. I'm sorry.

Unless you believe that Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Protestantism are but 200 years old..this statement is false. Furthermore, while there were ECF's who supported the idea..there were also those WHO DID NOT. (And I'll further note that Catholics THEMSELVES did not attribute this doctrine as dogma until 1854..)

Luther and Calvin both believed in Mary's Immaculate Conception and sinlessness. And maybe it has been longer than 200 years, but in the early Christian days up to after Luther and the Reformation took place, Catholics believed in Mary's sinlessness and her Immaculate birth. Prove to me otherwise. Go back in history to the early church father writings and prove to me that some of them did not believe. Make sure though that they were really apart of the early church and not aremenists or some other group who were not obedient to Rome and her teachings.

God's Peace

 

[katholikos]

.
.

You go girl

 

[BreadAlone]

Amen. And because Jesus was God and because God cannot touch anything that is unholy or unpure, even more so, Mary had to be without sin. Please read what I posted above. You will like it. It will explain in great detail much more than I could ever do myself.

As I said earlier, Jesus is a human, which means that Mary could bare him. This argument is becoming circular..

That is an option that we all have. I just learned a bit more about the teaching myself. Catholics have an option if they embrace the teaching on Mary's Co-Redemptrix or not.

So..you have an option to not accept some of your own Churches official teachings if you so desire..

But Mary does represent succeeding where Eve failed. She obeyed God and did not fall into temptation. Please read the above writing post. It explains this much more better than I can.

The point was that the typology is flawed..

Jesus is our Lord and Savior. You know what, you are right about the Bible not referring to Joseph as a being a widow. That was my misunderstanding. I'm sorry.

Christ Himself says that Christians are just as (if not more) important to him as earthly brothers/cousins and Mother.

Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."

"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

Luther and Calvin both believed in Mary's Immaculate Conception and sinlessness. And maybe it has been longer than 200 years, but in the early Christian days up to after Luther and the Reformation took place, Catholics believed in Mary's sinlessness and her Immaculate birth. Prove to me otherwise. Go back in history to the early church father writings and prove to me that some of them did not believe. Make sure though that they were really apart of the early church and not aremenists or some other group who were not obedient to Rome and her teachings.

The Reformers were influenced greatly by their indoctrination in many of the falsehoods of the Medieval Church. This doesn't discourage us from looking to God's Word.

As to people who opposed the Immaculate conception, your own St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas are a couple

 

[katholikos]

This will never get solved because there is an underlying, bedrock issue that we don't agree on: "Authority".

Or more precisely, who is the authoratative teacher and interpretor of scripture: The individual, or the successors of the apostles (the bishops in union with the pope)?

The case has been made that Christ established a "teaching" church, not a "learning" church, and endowed the apostles with the mandate to teach and the Spirit of Truth that they may not err: A mandate and gift that rests with their successors today.

Those successors have taught us this infallible truth:

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Pope Pius IX - Ineffabilis Deus

So, as St Augustine said: "Rome has spoken; the dispute is at an end"

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This will never get solved because there is an underlying, bedrock issue that we don't agree on: "Authority"

You're probably right: If self appoints self as the sole, infallible/unaccountable authority, then self declares that self CANNOT be wrong and MUST be right - therefore, is. Now, if you accept that rubric, then the LDS is right, Jim Jones is right, Satan is right - well, you get the point. But you don't. The RCC allows only ONE to do this: itself. So, for the RCC, that's what it is: "I'm right cuz I'm right so I'm right - and all MUST accept whatever I alone says "with docility" because I say so" (CCC 87, etc.).

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this obviously perfectly circular and absolutely self-authenticating insistence of self alone if it weren't for some things:

1) We're not talking about who wil win the World's Series, we're talking about all eternity. It's FAR too important for this "cuz I said so, that's why!" epistemology...

2) God has boldly and repeatedly warned us of false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray. Jesus praised the Ephesian Christians for doing the opposite of what the RCC self-claims and requires; He praised them for regarding their teachers as accountable, for testing them, arbitrating them and finding them false (Revelation 2:2). The rubric you are promoting here requires that we accept a given denomination as infallible/unaccountable and all the other remarkable, self-authenticating, accountability-evading things it requires - and ignoring God's warnings in its case.


3) IMHO, true teachers welcome the light. They invite accountability. False teachers hide in the dark. They insist that accountability is moot in their own sole case (exclusively). They hide behind a wall of self-claims.

Or more precisely, who is the authoratative teacher and interpretor of scripture: The individual, or the successors of the apostles (the bishops in union with the pope)?

1. Your question assumes Sola Scriptura, which the RCC and LDS boldly REJECT. The authority in the RCC is NOT Scripture (needing interpretation), its itself.

2. Yes, I think there needs to be an interpreter. It's odd to me that you excluded the church from your list of options, but then the RCC and LDS MUST insist that the interpreter be an individual (thus radically individually is key to both) and that it must be an institution (so that it can claim that it is the sole interpreter). IMHO, God established the church - not the RCC or LDS, and God wrote the Scriptures for the church - not the UCC or UMC or RCC or LCMS or any other denominational institutional "it." So, I would add a third option to your choices: the church, Christians.

3. There is ZERO indication that the RCC denomination is a "successor" to the Apostles anymore than any other denominational institution.

The case has been made that Christ established a "teaching" church, not a "learning" church, and endowed the apostles with the mandate to teach and the Spirit of Truth that they may not err: A mandate and gift that rests with their successors today.

1. Just a list of olympic leaps - each entirely unsubstantiated.

2. Jesus never promises that the 13 Apostles cannot err (if you read the Gospels, you'll discover MUCH of His ministry was spent correcting those men you argue were infallible, one of them He called "Satan." One betrayed Him).

3. Jesus never promised the Catholic Church ANYTHING. About anything. For anything. Ever. Not once.

Those successors have taught us this infallible truth:

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Pope Pius IX - Ineffabilis Deus

Perfect circular self-authentication....


My prescription for you: Spend some time with a good Mormon apologist....


Back to the issue of the substantiation for the DOGMA that Mary was conceived "immaculately." It's entirely moot that the one teaching it happens to teach it - such is just as meaningless as saying that the LDS says that Joseph Smith was an Apostle of Jesus and oh the LDS teaches what the LDS teaches.




.

 

[katholikos]

.

Only one word is coming to mind right now:
Gobbldeygook

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Amen. And because Jesus was God and because God cannot touch anything that is unholy or unpure, even more so, Mary had to be without sin.

Jesus touched LOTS of people, therefore all of them were conceived immaculately and never sinned? I could take the time to list all the people that we know Jesus touched, but we are all aware the RCC does not have a dogma of immaculate conception for them all (or any of them, except Mary).

I just learned a bit more about the teaching myself. Catholics have an option if they embrace the teaching on Mary's Co-Redemptrix or not.

For now. From what I've heard, Mary the Co-Redemptrix is widely expected to be made dogma in our lifetime. There's no end to the dogmas the RCC can make. Not that it happens a lot in any single lifetime. The last was in 1950, I believe. But such is moot to our discussion here.

Luther and Calvin both believed in Mary's Immaculate Conception and sinlessness. And maybe it has been longer than 200 years, but in the early Christian days up to after Luther and the Reformation took place, Catholics believed in Mary's sinlessness and her Immaculate birth.

1. The issue of the debate is not if someone did or does believe in Mary's sinlessness or in an immaculate conception of the singular Mary. The issue of the debate is singular: Is it True that Mary specifically was conceived immaculately?


2. Yes, as noted repeatedly, Luther accepted all the current Marian views of the RCC (some of which weren't dogmas in his day, however!). Such is moot to anything, as has also been noted repeatedly. But you may be missing the key issue: he did not teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary as dogma (or even doctrine). As has been explained several times (including in this thread), classic Protestantism has what we term "pious opinion." This is a view that has historic, ecumenical affirmation ("Tradition") but is not affirmed by Scripture. Luther embraced a number of these Marian views - some very passionately (truth is: Mary was very central to Luther's spirituality - more than was common in his day among Catholics). This is still its status in Lutheranism. Some embrace this view as "pious opinion" (including my Lutheran pastor), some do not (I don't, I don't have an opinion on this at all). It's not officially heresy because Scripture does not deny it, but it's not doctrine because Scripture does not affirm it. Debbie - IMHO, the RCC has a bigger "problem" with the EO on this than it does with classic Protestantism. The EO denies this dogma of the RCC (which I think technically makes them heretics) whereas we don't - we just don't officially or dogmatically embrace it. We're with the RCC on original sin, the EO is not.

Go back in history to the early church father writings and prove to me that some of them did not believe.

1. I'll let those better aquainted with the specific RCC's "Fathers" on this address this. I understand there were several who denied this dogma. OF COURSE, the RCC will simply argue that they were wrong on this point. The EO has never embraced this dogma.

2. With all due and well deserved respect, your rubric is backwards. It is NEVER the responsibility of another to DISPROVE our teaching, is is our responsibility to substantiate it. Debbie, PROVE to me that the RCC's own "Fathers" did not beleive that there are billions of furry creatures living on the Moon of Endor. Do you get the point?




Thank you. Back to our discussion of whether the debate thread is substantiating the Dogma that Mary (specifically and soly) was conceived immaculately, and that such is the highest level of certainty.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Hentenza]

Luke 1:46-48
46And Mary said:
"My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.

The Virgin Mary had a savior therefore she was in need of a savior. All of us sinners are.

Thank you Jesus!!!!

 

[BreadAlone]

Rather than listening to sinful, fallible men who say things like the Earth is billions of years old, call themselves Christ's Substitute on Earth, and say that all can get to heaven if they "earnestly seek their interpretation of "God..", Protestants/Lutherans would prefer to let the Holy Spirit interpret his truth. If we open our minds to the Spirit, he will lead and come to us..

This will never get solved because there is an underlying, bedrock issue that we don't agree on: "Authority".

Or more precisely, who is the authoratative teacher and interpretor of scripture: The individual, or the successors of the apostles (the bishops in union with the pope)?

The case has been made that Christ established a "teaching" church, not a "learning" church, and endowed the apostles with the mandate to teach and the Spirit of Truth that they may not err: A mandate and gift that rests with their successors today.

Those successors have taught us this infallible truth:

"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Pope Pius IX - Ineffabilis Deus

So, as St Augustine said: "Rome has spoken; the dispute is at an end"

 

[Uphill Battle]

.

Only one word is coming to mind right now:
Gobbldeygook

which is why you post it repeatedly, no doubt. If that's all you have in your mind... it's sure to show up.

 

[BreadAlone]

which is why you post it repeatedly, no doubt. If that's all you have in your mind... it's sure to show up.

Things have been pretty freindly so far..lets not escalate..

 

[Uphill Battle]

Things have been pretty freindly so far..lets not escalate..

escalate what? It's ok for him to say it?

friendly indeed.

more Arrogance from the Kath.... it's becoming tiresome.

 

[BreadAlone]

escalate what? It's ok for him to say it?

friendly indeed.

more Arrogance from the Kath.... it's becoming tiresome.

Firsty, he didn't call your brain gobbelygook. Secondly, he can cut it out, too.

 

[Uphill Battle]

meh, whatever. Just wait until somebody (or do it yourself) slams their hand down on the report button. It can be handled in short order, I'm sure.