Defensor Christi
Well-Known Member
- Oct 25, 2012
- 2,202
- 75
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Dragon is what?!
The Dragon that waited for the woman to give birth so it could devour her son?
Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole worldhe was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.Forgive me if I take your 'plain reading' of Scripture with a grain of salt
Perhaps the Dragon is symbolize an anti-type of Christ?That's not Mary spoken about in Revelation, it's not even the church. It's Israel, the crown with 12 stars represents Israel...that was shown in a previous post
The Dragon yes is a figure for God and the Son, Our Lord, but the woman is not Mary, but that of Israel.
Sorry but it's as fairly clear when you read the verse to see it in that manner then anything to do with Mary.
So are you trying to say you believe the PoJ? That it's correct? Council of Trullo, to my knowledge, is not an ecumenical council of the Church.The idea of an abnormal birth begins with the Protoevangelium of James. It is mentioned against by Clement of Alexandria. Trullo Council defines that there was no afterbirth.
So, the idea of ever-virgin, the reason for it, traces to the idea of, as another poster put it, a teleporting baby, born unlike the rest of humanity.
This idea contradicts scripture where Paul says born of a woman and John says came by water and blood.
PS Cakes to the queen of heaven are a reference thereto.
No, and I know you know that. Free to disagree as to the method of Christ's birth.So another words, RCs are free to either agree or disagree on the perpetual virginity of Mary up to her death?
.
No, and I know you know that. Free to disagree as to the method of Christ's birth.
Not really. Scripture and tradition through Tertullian and others are very clear to tell us that Christ was born normally, by water and blood, as flesh, with normal afterbirth.
The alternative is some sort of mystical birth, like water passing through a straw or teleporting or a spirit through a wall, such that virginity was retained.
That's not what the dogma states, though, so our faith doesn't require us to believe one way or the other.. Tertullian and others are not definitive.Not really. Scripture and tradition through Tertullian and others are very clear to tell us that Christ was born normally, by water and blood, as flesh, with normal afterbirth.
The alternative is some sort of mystical birth, like water passing through a straw or teleporting or a spirit through a wall, such that virginity was retained.
That's not what the dogma states, though, so our faith doesn't require us to believe one way or the other.. Tertullian and others are not definitive.
"Their understanding" is not dogma.Perhaps not definitive, but certainly clear and explicit, leaving no room for doubt as to their understanding.
Not really. Scripture and tradition through Tertullian and others are very clear to tell us that Christ was born normally, by water and blood, as flesh, with normal afterbirth.
The alternative is some sort of mystical birth, like water passing through a straw or teleporting or a spirit through a wall, such that virginity was retained.
I don't know how it can be explained any more clearly than that.
That's not what the dogma states, though, so our faith doesn't require us to believe one way or the other.. Tertullian and others are not definitive.
Perhaps not definitive, but certainly clear and explicit, leaving no room for doubt as to their understanding.
So the IC is not dogma?"Their understanding" is not dogma.
Originally Posted by Setyoufree
The Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) is 1 of 2 infallible declarations of the Romans Catholic Church.
My contention is that this doctrine attacks the Biblical account of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Orthodox also reject this teaching of the RCC. Unlike Roman Catholicism and some denominations of Protestantism, the Orthodox do not see ancestral sin as an inheritance of guilt or a "black mark" on the soul. Through ancestral sin, the world became fallen and we have to suffer the consequences (mortality, war, famine etc..) . To set the Holy Theotokos apart as being "free" from ancestral sin removes a part of her humanity and effectively separates her from the rest of us. Through her, Christ assumed human form, for all of our sakes.
.
"Their understanding" is not dogma.
Certainly not dogma according to your denomination. However, neither are these individuals heretics.
So the IC is not dogma?
I am getting a headache over all of this!
Here is the original OP:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7833555-99/#post66033409
.
You belong to a denomination...we do not, of course you already know this...but since you are bent on arguing semantics, I thought I would add my two cents.
No wonder I left this place for so long...
Certainly not dogma according to your denomination. However, neither are these individuals heretics.
The Immaculate Conception contradicts the gospel 2,
bbbbbbb, when was the last time you ever called Mary
'blessed' as the Holy Bible states ? More than likely you never have. Too Catholic you say, yet the bible says that "all generations shall call me blessed". You call yourself a Sola Scriptura yet you "pick and choose". Is that the correct way to understand the Holy Bible? You only take what you want and leave the rest.
I'm not a member of any denomination. But it's true that you can believe either way. Just like the Catholic Church makes no statement about whether the Theory of Evolution can be believed or not, in any of its forms. You can, as long as you don't deny Genesis.
Another example, we don't definitively state whether Mary died or not before she was assumed into heaven.
So the IC is not dogma?
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?