The Immaculate Conception and Free Will

narnia59 · Jun 29, 2011

xfisherman said:
Any doctrine not backed up by the teachings of the Bible is standing on shaky ground,just my 2 cents worth.

I'd say there's a lot more evidence in Scripture for the Immaculate Conception of Mary than say, believing that Scripture alone is the authority for all doctrine. And I'll even throw in a nickel.

justinangel · Jun 30, 2011

Nick T said:
None of your quotes prove anything about Mary being preserved from original sin- they simply state that she was sinless .a.k.a. free from personal sin.

Then how do you explain what Archbishop Proclus wrote about Jesus not "contracting any stain" just as his mother had been "formed without any stain of her own"? These Greek Fathers did not share your view on original sin, so you can't interpret their writings based on your presuppositions. They may not have exactly embraced the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as it was defined by Pope Pius lX, but Church doctrines develop over time. The Apostolic Tradition is not static or confined to a given period in time. It wasn't until the 15th century that the present teaching of the Immaculate Conception was universally accepted in the Catholic Church upon its established feast day. Anyway, the Greek Fathers at least believed that Mary was cleansed of the stain of original sin while formed in the womb and before her birth, if not at the first instant of her conception. Please examine what the Greek Fathers believed about original sin. You will see how far the Eastern Orthodox have broken away from the Apostolic Tradition of the Church.

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants...For the apostles...knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin, which must be washed away through the water and the Spirit."
Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 (c.A.D. 244)

"How much more then should an infant not be held back [from receiving baptism], who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh of Adam. He has contracted the contagion of that old [bodily and spiritual] death from his first being born. For this very reason does he approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another [Adam]."
St. Cyprian, Epistle to Fidus 68[64]:5 (c.A.D. 250)

"Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world...When Adam transgressed sin reached out to all men."
St. Athansaius, Discourses Against the Arians 1:51 (inter A.D. 358-62)

"Evil was mixed up in our nature from the beginning...through those who by their disobedience introduced the disease...so man is born from man, a being subject to passions from a being subject to passions, a sinner from a sinner. Thus sin takes its rise in us as we are born; it grows with us and keeps us company until life's term."
St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Beatitudes 6 (ante A.D. 394)

"If anyone says that by the offense of Adam's transgression not the whole man, that is, according to body and soul, was changed for the worse, but believes that while the liberty of the soul endures without harm, the body only is exposed to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and resists the scriptures. If anyone asserts that Adam's transgression injured him alone and not his descendents, or declares that certainly death of the body only, which is the punishment of sin, but not sin also, which is death of the soul, passed through one man into the whole human race, he will do an injustice to God, contradicting the Apostle.
Council of Orange, Canons 1-2 (A.D. 530)

In guilt was I born; a sinner was I conceived in my mother's womb.
Psalm 51, 7

The Eastern Orthodox will never assent to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as long as they embrace an erroneous doctrine of original sin.

No human inherits personal sin from Adam and Eve- we inherit the consequences of their sin which is death. We also inherit a tendency to sin but not actual sin in itself.

If we do not inherit sin, but only a sinful inclination, then the sacrament of baptism is superfluous. For the sacrament does not remove the effects of original sin - only its stain. We are still inclined to sin and must die at some point in time regardless of being baptized. The Catholic Church has always taught from earliest times that Baptism is necessary for salvation; the sacrament purifies, sanctifies, and justifies us before God. We lose not only our state of sanctification, but also our justification every time we commit a mortal sin. So our baptism is necessary for the remission of sin. We are not morally responsible for the personal sins of Adam and Eve, but dispositionally we are in a state of sin because of them. By that I mean, when we are conceived we are not partakers of the divine life, which our baptism restores, for we are not in the original state of holiness and justice. This state of being in our relationship with God was forfeited by our first parents. When God infused Mary's soul with his sanctifying grace at the first instant she was conceived in her mother's womb, she was kept from being a fallen creature. Her redemption was preventative, while ours is curative through the waters of baptism by virtue of Christ's merits alone.

As such Mary was born, like all humans without personal sin and, because of her piety and favor in the eyes of the Lord, she did not commit any personal sins in her life.

Mary's immaculate conception also preserved her from inheriting a sinful nature.

However she still inherited original sin, the consequence of sin which is death. Mary still died and still required Jesus Christ to save her from eternal death and bring her into eternal life. This has nothing to do with her lack of personal sin in life.

Jesus also died, but he was sinless by virtue of his substantial grace of union with the Father. Both Jesus and Mary were sinless in their humanity, and neither of them were subject to the law of death: being preserved free from the stain of original sin. Mary was subject to the debt of sin like all of us, and so our heavenly Father intervened with his grace when she was conceived.

We are saved from our sins, that is true, but we are also saved from the consequences of original sin, that is death. We cannot escape this as we are all born inheriting death and so all require Christ for salvation.

Sanctifying grace delivers us from spiritual (the second) death: death of the soul and eternal damnation. Thus baptism is necessary for our salvation.

Your claims that the Byzantine Catholics have preserved this and that the Orthodox have not make no historical sense- most Byzantine Catholic Churches united with Rome in the 16th Century or later, way after you accuse us of changing the original teaching.

The Feast of the Conception of Saint Anna was addressed by John Damascene in the 8th century when he gave his homily On the Nativity. The Byzantine rite has always been part of the Catholic heritage notwithstanding any disunity.

Not only that but no Eastern Church, be they Eastern or Oriental Orthodox have any kind of immaculate conception doctrine. This clearly is not an Eastern thing or the Eastern Churches would have accepted it without any need for Western intervention.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception hadn't fully matured in the patristic era, but it was certainly anticipated in the writings of the Greek Fathers I quoted above. Diivne mysteries take time to unravel because it involves penetrating the mind and will of God. Sacred Tradition has been described as "the deeds wrought by God in salvation history". And for God a thousand years is like a day.

Pax Christu,
J.A.

Mark_Sam · Jun 30, 2011

narnia59 said:
I'd say there's a lot more evidence in Scripture for the Immaculate Conception of Mary than say, believing that Scripture alone is the authority for all doctrine. And I'll even throw in a nickel.

Interesting!

The only Scriptural evidence I've heard is the Proto-Evangelium (Genesis 3:15). God will but enmity between the Woman (Mary) and the Serpent (Satan), so therefore she cannot sin, for then she would have been a slave of sin (John 8:34), and not have enmity between herself and Satan. Now, though I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, this isn't a bad line of reasoning. (I could talk about the Lutheran theology of "simul justus et peccator", but that's another discussion )

But is there more?

justinangel · Jun 30, 2011

xfisherman said:
Any doctrine not backed up by the teachings of the Bible is standing on shaky ground,just my 2 cents worth.

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.
1 Corinthians 11, 2

The notion of the Bible being the sole rule or norm of faith has never been a part of the Apostolic traditions of the Church. However, the Bible is the objective rule of faith by which we assess the validity of our traditional beliefs and devotions. Church doctrines have never originated from a proof-reading of the sacred texts, but from the Holy Spirit who declares to us what he hears from the Divine Word of God, Jesus Christ, (John 16:12-13). Subsequently we rely on the written word of God for confirmation of our beliefs and practices to make sure that we have not erred in the formulation of our doctrines, under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit who protects the Church from teaching error. Concerning the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, there is no contradiction between this teaching and sacred Scripture. On the contrary, Mary's preservation from the stain of original sin is implicitly revealed in the Scriptures just as it had been through the medium of sacred Tradition until made explicit in the form of dogma; for in the words of St. Paul in his first Letter to Timothy (3:15), "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" - not the Bible: the same (Catholic) Church that finally listed the canon of Scripture in part on the criteria of her established traditions. Without the original autographs of the sacred texts we cannot be sure that the books, letters, and gospels we read and appeal to are authentic. Their authenticity can only be determined by the Apostolic teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Church under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 15:28).

If you are confident that the four Gospels you appeal to are authentic, then there is no logical reason why you should doubt the validity of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, unless you are being dishonest with yourself. Meanwhile, the irony is that you choose to believe what you personally interpret the Scriptures to mean, which amounts to begging the question. Circular reasoning is a charge that cannot be laid against the Church, for, as I said, her doctrines do not originate from proof-reading the texts as they do in the numerous Protestant traditions which are alien to the historic Christian faith (i.e., sola fide). As St. Paul confirms, the Apostolic Tradition is also a medium of divine revelation, which precedes the written word: Scripture is a result of Tradition, so Scripture must be interpreted in light of Tradition by the central teaching authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the chief purpose of preserving a unity of faith; for there is only "one Spirit, one body, one Lord, one faith, and one baptism" (Eph 4:4-5). Jesus handed on the keys of the kingdom to Peter and the Apostles for them to pass on so that God's objective truth would be revealed to all the faithful and be received by them in unity with a certitude (not skepticism) of faith (cf. Mt 16:19).

"If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures (Old Testament), I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians 8,2 [c.A.D. 110)

The Bishop of Antioch, when defending our belief in the Incarnation and the divinty of Christ against heretics, who presumed to have the authority to interpret the wriiten word (Scripture) in opposition to the unwritten word (Tradition), was in the same position as we Catholics find ourselves today when defending our Marian dogmas and doctrines against the convictions of non-Catholic Christians. Often we have heard the same line: "That remains to be proved". But the truth is, most orthodox Christian doctrines, whether they be the Trinity, Hypostatic Union of two natures in Christ, or the Immaculate Conception of Mary, as they have been explicitly defined, cannot be "proved" by appealing to the Scriptures alone. For the written word is formally insufficient, although materially sufficient, and must thus be interpreted in light of the Apostolic Tradition from which the written word proceeds and be accepted in faith. The Jews do indeed have the Old Testament, but they still reject our fundamental Christian beliefs as professed in the Apostles Creed. They have not embraced our deposit of faith founded on the preaching of the Apostles and their valid sucessors in the episcopate of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. They prefer to interpret the written word according to their own traditions.

By the way, the Bible doesn't teach - people do.

Pax Christu,
J.A.

xfisherman · Jun 30, 2011

You can give pages and pages of reasoning but does believing in the immaculate conception of Mary gives you salvation? Does it justify one's right to go to heaven?

MrPolo · Jun 30, 2011

xfisherman said:
You can give pages and pages of reasoning but does believing in the immaculate conception of Mary gives you salvation? Does it justify one's right to go to heaven?

If it is a truly revealed doctrine and if believing in Christ includes believing in what is divinely revealed, then yes it can affect one's salvation.

justinangel · Jun 30, 2011

xfisherman said:
You can give pages and pages of reasoning but does believing in the immaculate conception of Mary give you salvation? Does it justify one's right to go to heaven?

What justifies one's right to go to heaven is loving the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our soul, and our neighbour as ourselves. We do not fail to keep this command of our Lord by believing in the Immaculate Conception. Anyway, one is not justified simply by believing that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins. Even the demons know that, but they aren't saved. One can be unjustified before God by rejecting the teaching authority appointed by Jesus - his apostles and their valid successors in the Church hierarchy - provided he isn't in a state of invincible ignorance (a theological term).

"The one who listens to you listens to me, and the one who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects the One who sent me."
Luke 10, 16

"By the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own, '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 our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour 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.'"
The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius lX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 december 1854

Well?

narnia59 · Jun 30, 2011

Mark_Sam said:
Interesting!

The only Scriptural evidence I've heard is the Proto-Evangelium (Genesis 3:15). God will but enmity between the Woman (Mary) and the Serpent (Satan), so therefore she cannot sin, for then she would have been a slave of sin (John 8:34), and not have enmity between herself and Satan. Now, though I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, this isn't a bad line of reasoning. (I could talk about the Lutheran theology of "simul justus et peccator", but that's another discussion )

But is there more?

It's a very good line of reasoning. Genesis 3:15 indicates that the "enmity" that Jesus has with Satan is to be shared with "the woman". This woman cannot be Eve, as she's already breached that "enmity" with sin. This is also the reason that Jesus always refers to Mary as "woman". There was another woman in Scripture who was referred to as "woman" -- Eve before the fall. Christ is drawing a parallel between Mary and Eve when he calls her "woman".

St. Paul draws the comparison between Mary and Eve when he says in 1 Corinthians 11:12 "for as woman (Eve) was made from man (Adam), so man(Christ) is now born of woman (Mary). And all things are from God."

The other parallel Scripture draws is between Mary and the ark of the covenant. There are pages and pages in the book of Exodus where God gives explicit instructions on the care Moses was to take in the construction of what would be his dwelling place among his people -- using the purest gold and being completely sanctified before it is overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and God's dwells there. St. Luke in writing his Gospel draws multiple parallels between Mary's visit to Elizabeth and the ark coming to David in Jerusalem such as:

The Ark of the Covenant traveled to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam 6:1-11)
Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zachariah in the hill country of Judea (Lk 1:39)

David, dressed as a priest danced and leaped in front of the ark. (2 Sam 6:14)
John the Baptist--of priestly lineage--leaped in his mother's womb at the approach of Mary (Lk 1:41)

David asks, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" (2 Sam 6:9)
Elizabeth asks "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Lk 1:43)

David shouts in the presence of the ark. (2 Sam 6:15)
Elizabeth "exclaimed with a loud cry" in the presence of Mary. (Lk 1:42)

The ark remained in the house of Obed-Edom three months (2 Sam 6:11)
Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth three months (Lk 1:56)

The house of Obed-Edom was blessed by the presence of the ark. (2 Sam 6:11)
The word "blessed" is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Lk 1:39-45)

The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God's presence and glory is revealed in the temple. (2 Sam 6:12; 1 Kings 8:9-11)
Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate at the temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22)

Hope that helps.

narnia59 · Jun 30, 2011

xfisherman said:
You can give pages and pages of reasoning but does believing in the immaculate conception of Mary gives you salvation? Does it justify one's right to go to heaven?

Why would one seek only the minimum of truth needed for salvation as opposed to the maximum of truth available for deeper understanding and a more profound experience of life in the mystical body of Christ?

xfisherman · Jun 30, 2011

justinangel said:
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

The verse you quoted above is not refering to the man made traditions as taught by your Church,Apostle Paul here is refering to the teachings as he has taught them in the chapter below.

2Th 2:1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,
2Th 2:2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
2Th 2:5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.
2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
2Th 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
2Th 2:12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2Th 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
2Th 2:14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
2Th 2:16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,
2Th 2:17 comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.
1 Corinthians 11, 2

Again,what traditions are the verse above refering to,surely you don't mean the man made traditions of your Church.If you look at the verse in context in the chapter below,in 1 Corinthians 11,2 Paul here is refering to the teachings which he taught them in the verses below,so you are taking the above two verses you've quoted and inferring that Apostle Paul meant that he was referring to all traditions as taught by your Church,again the meaning is quite clear that he was only talking about those traditions which he has taught his followers.

1Co 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
1Co 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
1Co 11:5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
1Co 11:6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1Co 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
1Co 11:12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
1Co 11:16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
1Co 11:17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.
1Co 11:18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,
1Co 11:19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
1Co 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
1Co 11:21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.
1Co 11:22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

xfisherman · Jun 30, 2011

justinangel said:
What justifies one's right to go to heaven is loving the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our soul, and our neighbour as ourselves. We do not fail to keep this command of our Lord by believing in the Immaculate Conception. Anyway, one is not justified simply by believing that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins. Even the demons know that, but they aren't saved. One can be unjustified before God by rejecting the teaching authority appointed by Jesus - his apostles and their valid successors in the Church hierarchy - provided he isn't in a state of invincible ignorance (a theological term).

"The one who listens to you listens to me, and the one who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects the One who sent me."
Luke 10, 16

"By the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own, '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 our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour 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.'"
The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius lX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 december 1854

Well?

LOL,You have no authority from Jesus or the Apostles,if you have you will be able to perform miracles everywhere.

xfisherman · Jun 30, 2011

narnia59 said:
Why would one seek only the minimum of truth needed for salvation as opposed to the maximum of truth available for deeper understanding and a more profound experience of life in the mystical body of Christ?

I didn't know that believing in the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles are minimum truth,can you expand then on your maximum truth.

justinangel · Jul 1, 2011

xfisherman said:
justinangel said:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
2 Thessalonians 2, 15

The verse you quoted above is not refering to the man made traditions as taught by your Church,Apostle Paul here is refering to the teachings as he has taught them in the chapter below.

2Th 2:1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,
2Th 2:2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
2Th 2:5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.
2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
2Th 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
2Th 2:12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2Th 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
2Th 2:14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
2Th 2:16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,
2Th 2:17 comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.
1 Corinthians 11, 2

Again,what traditions are the verse above refering to,surely you don't mean the man made traditions of your Church.If you look at the verse in context in the chapter below,in 1 Corinthians 11,2 Paul here is refering to the teachings which he taught them in the verses below,so you are taking the above two verses you've quoted and inferring that Apostle Paul meant that he was referring to all traditions as taught by your Church,again the meaning is quite clear that he was only talking about those traditions which he has taught his followers.

1Co 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
1Co 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.
1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
1Co 11:5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
1Co 11:6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1Co 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
1Co 11:12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
1Co 11:16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
1Co 11:17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.
1Co 11:18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,
1Co 11:19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
1Co 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
1Co 11:21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.
1Co 11:22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Click to expand...

Look again. Paul is referring to all the traditions embraced by the Church: those which were "taught either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." He has the deposit of faith in mind, which includes both sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition. Not everything the apostles orally preached was explicitly put down in writing. In fact, they preached much more than they wrote, and only four apostles are acknowledged as being authors of the New Testament texts. The Epistles are only occasional letters that were addressed to particular communities to help resolve controversial issues pertaining to faith and morals and to help rectify abuses in the practice of the faith (i.e., the celebration of the Lord's Supper/Holy Eucharist). They do not serve as a catechism which contain explicitly defined teachings on all subjects pertaining to the gospels. Apparently there wasn't any abuse in Marian devotion at the time, which explains why Paul is silent about Mary. But Luke, a companion of Paul, who must have learned much from him, has a lot to write about Mary in his Infancy Narratives: often allegorically.

Narnia has already provided an irrefutable example above, by referring to the parallelism between Luke's Gospel and the second Book of Samuel ( a case of biblical typology that characterizes Mary as the ark of the Covenant) which clearly indicates that the apostles believed and orally taught Mary was sinless since the instant God fashioned her soul so that she would be made worthy to conceive and bear the Divine Word made flesh. In his Apostolic Constitution Pope Pius lX cites Mary's "Divine Maternity" as the principal reason why she was preserved free from the stain of original sin. The doctrine of her sinlessness has always belonged to the deposit of faith since apostolic time and has been transmitted through the medium of sacred Tradition from one generation to the next with more and more elaboration. Try reading the Scriptures in a spiritual sense (allegorical/anagogical/moral) for a change without cherrypicking isolated verses (i.e., "All have sinned.") and separating them from the whole body of Scripture, and maybe then the fullness of God's truth will reach you.

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from putridity and corruption."
St. Hippolytus, Orations Inillud Dominus pascit me {ante A.D. 235}

Into a soul that plots evil wisdom enters not, nor dwells she in a body under debt of sin. Now with you is wisdom, who knows your works and was present when you made the world.
Wisdom 1,4; 9,9 (cf. Jn 1:1)

Pax Christu,
J.A.

justinangel · Jul 1, 2011

xfisherman said:
LOL,You have no authority from Jesus or the Apostles,if you have you will be able to perform miracles everywhere.

It certainly would take a miracle for Pope Pius to convince you otherwise.

Pax Christu,
J.A.

xfisherman · Jul 1, 2011

justinangel said:
It certainly would take a miracle for Pope Pius to convince you otherwise.

Pax Christu,
J.A.

Like I said already,your Pope has no apostolic power,cannot perform miracles.

narnia59 · Jul 1, 2011

xfisherman said:
I didn't know that believing in the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles are minimum truth,can you expand then on your maximum truth.

The maximum of truth would be all that the church established by Christ holds and teaches.

You could certainly approach the Bible in the same way -- what do I need to believe from the Bible in order to be saved? Or do I need to know every single thing in the Bible to be saved?

narnia59 · Jul 1, 2011

xfisherman said:
LOL,You have no authority from Jesus or the Apostles,if you have you will be able to perform miracles everywhere.

So can you perform miracles everywhere?

justinangel · Jul 2, 2011

xfisherman said:
Like I said already,your Pope has no apostolic power,cannot perform miracles.

The ability to perform miracles is a charismatic gift of the Holy Spirit. This gift was bestowed upon the apostles, but it is not transferrable between individuals as is the power of the Catholic clergy to "bind and loose" through Apostolic succession by the laying on of hands. The keys that were given to Peter and the Apostles by Jesus can be passed on from one bishop to the next who can trace his authority back to the Apostles through the sacrament of Ordination. Pope Pius was the Bishop of Rome, Timothy of Ephesus, by Apostolic lineage.

Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate...Attend to yourself and to your teaching...for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
1 Timothy 4, 14-16

And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
2 Timothy 2, 2

"And indeed it was wholly fiitting that such wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent (cf. Gen 3:15). To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son...and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and the Blessed Virgin Mary."
The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius lX: Ineffabilis Deus

"There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; God existing in flesh; both of Mary and of God, Jesus Christ our Lord."
St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, To the Ephesians 7 [c.A.D. 110)

This saying is trustworthy, whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopoi) desires a noble task.
1 Timothy 3, 1

"Well?"

LOCO · Jul 2, 2011

xfisherman said:
LOL,You have no authority from Jesus or the Apostles,if you have you will be able to perform miracles everywhere.

Did you read the whole posting? The other poster is not referring to himself as having authority, he is referring to the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX.

And yes Pope Pius IX himself personally was the subject of a miracle, partly due to his faith and largely through the intercession of Our Lady of Loreto. He was instantly cured of epilepsy and chronic fatique syndrome.

LOCO · Jul 2, 2011

xfisherman said:
Like I said already,your Pope has no apostolic power,cannot perform miracles.

What type of miracle are you talking about? What miracle have you performed?

All miracles are performed by Christ, not the person.

HEALING MIRACLES BY CATHOLICS (pg1)

CATHOLIC CHURCH REQUIREMENT FOR A MIRACLE TO BE DEFINED AS A MIRACLE:

1. Cure was instantaneous
2. Disease was incurable and did not return. No other medical, scientific explanation for cure.
3. Patient is examined by secular and religious doctors, psychologists and/or psychiatrists
4. Patient is monitored over a period of time
5. All medical, personal and eyewitness reports are documented
6. Cure attributed to prayer resulting in divine intervention

Pope JPII cured a French nun of Parkinson's disease.

Catholics who raised the dead:

St. Patrick Apostle of Ireland
St. Francis of Paola
Venerable John Baptist Tholomei
St. Bernardine of Sien
St. John Capistran
St. Francis of Paola
St. Joseph of Cupertino
St. Peter of Alcantara
St. Dominic, St. Ignatius Loyola
St. Philip Neri
St. Paul of the Cross
St. John Bosco
Blessed James Salomoni
St. Agnes of Montepulciano
Blessed Constantius of Fabrino
Blessed Sadoc and Companions
Blessed Mark of Modena
Blessed Ceslas
Blessed Augustine of Bugela
St. Rose of Lima
St. Martin de Porres
St. Francis Solanus
Marianne de Jesus of Quito
St. Cyril of Constantinople
Padre Pio
St. Margaret of Cortona
St. Felix of Cantalice
St. Rose of Viterbo
St. Pacific of San Severino
St. Hyacint
St. Louis Bertrand
St. Francis Xavier
St. John Francis Regis
St. Andrew Bobola
St. Francis Jerome
Brother Antony Pereyra

The Immaculate Conception and Free Will

Regular Member

Newbie

Veteran Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Church Militant

Church Militant

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency