The Immaculate Conception contradicts the gospel (2)

[Defensor Christi]

You're simply wrong. Being unclean requires a sin offering.

Lev. 15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

It wasn't giving birth, it was the giving of the accompanying blood.

I understand you can't agree with scripture's views, but we have stumbled upon the reason Tradition (from Protoevangelium of James to Council) teaches there was no issue of blood (no afterbirth) at Christ's birth.

Who/what requires it? Read some commentaries....

The Rationale of the Purity Laws. The central lesson conveyed by this system is that God is holy but human beings are contaminated. Everyone by biology inevitably contracted uncleanness from time to time; therefore, everyone in this fallen world must be purified to approach a holy God. Although "uncleanness" cannot be equated with "sin, " since factors beyond human control could cause a person to be unclean, nonetheless, there is a strong analogy between "uncleanness" and "sin."

Clean, Unclean - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Online

If the Blessed Virgin was with sin, so was the child...

6-8. the days of her purifying--Though the occasion was of a festive character, yet the sacrifices appointed were not a peace offering, but a burnt offering and sin offering, in order to impress the mind of the parent with recollections of the origin of sin, and that the child inherited a fallen and sinful nature. The offerings were to be presented the day after the period of her separation had ended--that is, forty-first for a boy, eighty-first for a girl.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Lev/Lev_012.cfm?a=102006

Is that what you are saying? The Lord was with sin?

 

[concretecamper]

Yes...you have clearly demonstrated your total understanding of the Catholic faith...all anyone has to do is read the last 10 pages or your thought provoking work...

He is an ex-catholic which of course makes him an expert. Gotta wonder if someone left the faith, did they really get it anyway....I don' t think so.

 

[MrMoe]

He is an ex-catholic which of course makes him an expert. Gotta wonder if someone left the faith, did they really get it anyway....I don' t think so.

You're very, very close to committing the no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[concretecamper]

You're very, very close to committing the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Haha....no way!

 

[squint]

Yes...you have clearly demonstrated your total understanding of the Catholic faith...all anyone has to do is read the last 10 pages or your thought provoking work...

You appeared to have discovered some things about IC that maybe you didn't know. You know, such as using IC as a shill to condemn other believers and turn them into heretics.

Such wonderful use of Mary ain't it?

lol

 

[Defensor Christi]

You appeared to have discovered some things about IC that maybe you didn't know. You know, such as using IC as a shill to condemn other believers and turn them into heretics.

Such wonderful use of Mary ain't it?

lol

Why is it you seem only to repeat the same thing over and again? Do you not take the time to read my responses?

No, I did not learn anything new...thank you though. Yes, I did post several times how 'heresy' would apply and to whom...no, I didnt realize you were a lapsed Catholic, so yes (if that is the case)...it would apply to you. Any additional questions?

 

[Albion]

Such wonderful use of Mary ain't it?

lol

Whatever differentiates one religious club from another. That's necessary if club membership is deemed to be the most important element in discipleship, salvation, and most of the rest of what we debate around here.

That is the perspective of some of us. Adherence to the faith of Christ itself is the perspective of most of the rest of us.

 

[squint]

Whatever differentiates one religious club from another. That's necessary if club membership is deemed to be the most important element in discipleship, salvation, and most of the rest of what we debate around here.

Why yes it is. It's also definitely 'a club.' Damnation of other believers is the common 'big stick' that everyone around here totes in their minds and hearts and uses to try to get everyone else to bow to their imaginations.

Very primate like if I might add. Makes me want to pull a woman by the hair. (not)

That is the perspective of some of us. Adherence to the faith of Christ itself is the perspective of most of the rest of us.

I like to start from a position of 'what is it you are REALLY trying to do with that belief?' Then we can debate the merits from there. If their 'club' is using an understanding to belittle, intimidate and threaten others, then their understandings are already fouled in my eyes and we may as well just focus on their ANTI-FRUIT, being the entire LACK of same in trying to do what they do.

 

[Standing Up]

Who/what requires it? Read some commentaries....

The Rationale of the Purity Laws. The central lesson conveyed by this system is that God is holy but human beings are contaminated. Everyone by biology inevitably contracted uncleanness from time to time; therefore, everyone in this fallen world must be purified to approach a holy God. Although "uncleanness" cannot be equated with "sin, " since factors beyond human control could cause a person to be unclean, nonetheless, there is a strong analogy between "uncleanness" and "sin."

Clean, Unclean - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Online

If the Blessed Virgin was with sin, so was the child...

6-8. the days of her purifying--Though the occasion was of a festive character, yet the sacrifices appointed were not a peace offering, but a burnt offering and sin offering, in order to impress the mind of the parent with recollections of the origin of sin, and that the child inherited a fallen and sinful nature. The offerings were to be presented the day after the period of her separation had ended--that is, forty-first for a boy, eighty-first for a girl.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Lev/Lev_012.cfm?a=102006

Is that what you are saying? The Lord was with sin?

There's two parts to the question.

One the fact that Mary had to make a sin offering FOR HERSELF, does not imply the baby "inherited" sin. EO wouldn't view it that way, although RC does.

Two how could He not be with sin? After all, He touched a dead person, a woman with blood, a leper, and others who were unclean. Did He have sin? No. Why? He was ushering in the New Covenant. (see your article).

At the same time, this may suggest, as you maintain, a difference between sin per se and uncleanness. Will have to look further, but suffice to say, Mary still had to bring the sin offering, implying her sinness. But not implying the baby
"had" sin.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You know, you have long seemed to me to be totally unaware of the contents of your posts. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt. Even when they are referred back to you, you have said they don't mean what they say or that you didn't say what you did.

Therefore, there's no point in calling your behavior to your attention. or hoping for a change. I thought for a moment that there might be, but there isn't.

I will close by reminding you that I have indeed posted (on another thread) a great example of something you said you never do. So that dare was issued and answered...within minutes, and I know you read it. Yet you're still demanding that I produce it.

Now go on and say that it doesn't exist, you never wrote what is quoted, or whatever makes you feel superior. You'll be the only one of the two of us reading it, but that's all right since you're the only one your posts are intended for anyway.

It's not about being superior, man. I admit that I'm not. It's not about me, here. So, again, I beckon you to get off your high horse, because all you seem to know how to do is take offense at what others post. I'm sorry for you. But, I have never posted anything in here that was meant to offend, but if I did so, I'm sorry. Since you won't provide examples, that's the best I can do.

 

[Defensor Christi]

There's two parts to the question.

One the fact that Mary had to make a sin offering FOR HERSELF, does not imply the baby "inherited" sin. EO wouldn't view it that way, although RC does.

I am merely reading what was in the commentary...

Two how could He not be with sin? After all, He touched a dead person, a woman with blood, a leper, and others who were unclean. Did He have sin? No. Why? He was ushering in the New Covenant. (see your article).

At the same time, this may suggest, as you maintain, a difference between sin per se and uncleanness. Will have to look further, but suffice to say, Mary still had to bring the sin offering, implying her sinness. But not implying the baby
"had" sin.

I think further study is needed...being ceremonially unclean does not equate with actual sin. Let me know what you come up with...thanks!

 

[Root of Jesse]

He is an ex-catholic which of course makes him an expert. Gotta wonder if someone left the faith, did they really get it anyway....I don' t think so.

I think that anyone who willingly leaves Catholicism indeed failed to recognize Who is really in the tabernacle. Anyone discerning that would stay, regardless of anything else.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You appeared to have discovered some things about IC that maybe you didn't know. You know, such as using IC as a shill to condemn other believers and turn them into heretics.

Such wonderful use of Mary ain't it?

lol

Truthfully, there is no such thing as an unwilling heretic.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Truthfully, there is no such thing as an unwilling heretic.

Actually an unwilling heretic would be invincibly ignorant, would he not? Thus, most of us Protestants fall into the gray void between being willing heretics and unwilling heretics (invincibly ignorant) with the overall result that the Catholic Church is an invisible church because it has no idea who are and who are not its members.

To the point at hand, according to your perspective, if a person really and truly understands the Marian dogmas including IC, then they will embrace them wholeheartedly. If they don't really and truly understand the Marian dogmas, then they are not really and truly heretics but are invincibly ignorant and can be justly accused of such even though we can talk intelligently at length about them, evidencing complete knowledge. As a result, some Catholic posters here can smugly dismiss us as not really understanding your faith and therefore, not worth responding to.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Actually an unwilling heretic would be invincibly ignorant, would he not? Thus, most of us Protestants fall into the gray void between being willing heretics and unwilling heretics (invincibly ignorant) with the overall result that the Catholic Church is an invisible church because it has no idea who are and who are not its members.

To the point at hand, according to your perspective, if a person really and truly understands the Marian dogmas including IC, then they will embrace them wholeheartedly. If they don't really and truly understand the Marian dogmas, then they are not really and truly heretics but are invincibly ignorant and can be justly accused of such even though we can talk intelligently at length about them, evidencing complete knowledge. As a result, some Catholic posters here can smugly dismiss us as not really understanding your faith and therefore, not worth responding to.

Being unwilling doesn't make you invincibly ignorant, in my opinion. Most people inherit their religion, and move away from it or toward it later in life. So if you're born Baptist, you can be considered invincibly ignorant of Catholic teaching.
To the point in hand, I don't know if it's possible to fully understand the Marian dogmas. Even when someone accepts them as truth, that doesn't mean we totally understand it. Same is true for the doctrine of the Trinity. We can't totally comprehend it. The question, then is, do we humble ourselves, and trust God?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Being unwilling doesn't make you invincibly ignorant, in my opinion. Most people inherit their religion, and move away from it or toward it later in life. So if you're born Baptist, you can be considered invincibly ignorant of Catholic teaching.
To the point in hand, I don't know if it's possible to fully understand the Marian dogmas. Even when someone accepts them as truth, that doesn't mean we totally understand it. Same is true for the doctrine of the Trinity. We can't totally comprehend it. The question, then is, do we humble ourselves, and trust God?

Thank you for your example. We know that the Council of Trent anathematized the Baptists, along with all other Protestants, proclaiming them to be heretics. Therefore any adherent to these bodies is, by definition, a heretic. However, we now encounter two forms of heresy - willing and unwilling. A willing heretic is a heretic without question. A Protestant who is ignorant of Catholicism is, of course, not a willing heretic, is he? If he is not a willing heretic then he is an unwilling heretic because the Council of Trent has labelled him as a heretic because of his affiliation with a Protestant church. To soften the term, the Catholic Church is not wiling to call him an unwilling heretic, but merely invincibly ignorant. I actually prefer being called a heretic to being called an ignoramus.

As to your final question, it would be true if the Catholic Church is God. In order for one to embrace Catholic dogma one must humble oneself and embrace Catholic dogma with all docility.

In Protestant theology God stands apart from the Church and cannot be equated with the Church, nor does His revelation of Himself consist of His Church, but has been fully given by the Word of God (the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ).

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thank you for your example. We know that the Council of Trent anathematized the Baptists, along with all other Protestants, proclaiming them to be heretics. Therefore any adherent to these bodies is, by definition, a heretic. However, we now encounter two forms of heresy - willing and unwilling. A willing heretic is a heretic without question. A Protestant who is ignorant of Catholicism is, of course, not a willing heretic, is he? If he is not a willing heretic then he is an unwilling heretic because the Council of Trent has labelled him as a heretic because of his affiliation with a Protestant church. To soften the term, the Catholic Church is not wiling to call him an unwilling heretic, but merely invincibly ignorant. I actually prefer being called a heretic to being called an ignoramus.

As to your final question, it would be true if the Catholic Church is God. In order for one to embrace Catholic dogma one must humble oneself and embrace Catholic dogma with all docility.

In Protestant theology God stands apart from the Church and cannot be equated with the Church, nor does His revelation of Himself consist of His Church, but has been fully given by the Word of God (the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ).

The problem is, you have to have been a Catholic to be called a heretic. So a Catholic who becomes a Baptist is a heretic (simply put). A born Baptist may believe heretical things, but is not, really, a heretic.
As to your last statement, I know. But to us, you cannot separate the two. God is the Church. We do live in a uni-verse, right? So everything is part of God's creation. Therefore, you cannot separate the two. I know you don't see it that way, though.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

As to your last statement, I know. But to us, you cannot separate the two. God is the Church. We do live in a uni-verse, right? So everything is part of God's creation. Therefore, you cannot separate the two. I know you don't see it that way, though.

That may be more easily explained using Eschatology. The OT wife is not the bride but the friend of the bridegroom. Hence much reference to Israel in Revelations. We can see from the final chapter of that book that all will be one in God in eternity. So the church at this time is seen thru Christ who is God but has separated Himself in time away from His previous work to complete a new work in God, for the purpose that all will be in all.

 

[concretecamper]

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of "freely willed".
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Heresy

 

[Root of Jesse]

That may be more easily explained using Eschatology. The OT wife is not the bride but the friend of the bridegroom. Hence much reference to Israel in Revelations. We can see from the final chapter of that book that all will be one in God in eternity. So the church at this time is seen thru Christ who is God but has separated Himself in time away from His previous work to complete a new work in God, for the purpose that all will be in all.

When I say what I said, you have to understand that Revelation is a perfect picture of the Mass, and we see the Ark of the Covenant, which was lost, in heaven. If you ever wonder why there are angels and sky painted in the ceiling over and behind the altar in a Catholic Church, it's a reminder that heaven touches earth during the Liturgy.