The Immaculate Conception contradicts the gospel (2)

[Defensor Christi]

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 world—he 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

That is why I wanted him to explain...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

Perhaps the Dragon is symbolize an anti-type of Christ?

Revelation 12:17
and the Dragon[OC Church-Law/death] was angry against the woman[NC Church-life/spirit], and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, those keeping the commands of God, and having the testimony of Jesus Christ.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7435928/
Has the Satan/Dragon/Devil been bound Reve




.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

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.

And again, I tell you, we believe there are different senses of Scripture, so in one sense, it's literally Mary, in another sense, it's Daughter Zion, as Isaiah uses it.
But we don't have to believe one way or the other, regarding the technicalities-it hasn't been dogmatically declared.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

 

[Albion]

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.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Perhaps not definitive, but certainly clear and explicit, leaving no room for doubt as to their understanding.

"Their understanding" is not dogma.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Root of Jesse

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.

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.

"Their understanding" is not dogma.

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

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.

Originally Posted by ChristsSoldier115

OH COME ON MAN! We are still using the other anti-RCC thread. Can ya wait for that one to die off first?
​

.

 

[bbbbbbb]

"Their understanding" is not dogma.

Certainly not dogma according to your denomination. However, neither are these individuals heretics.

 

[Defensor Christi]

Certainly not dogma according to your denomination. However, neither are these individuals heretics.

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...

 

[Defensor Christi]

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



.

Yes, the immaculate conception is a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church...

Dogmas of the Catholic Church - Catholic Apologetics

 

[bbbbbbb]

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...

Yes, of course I know that you believe that your church is the one and only church on the face of the earth and that the rest of us are schismatics, heretics, sectarians, ecclesial communities, separated brethren, etc. depending how the current wind of semantics might be blowing.

What helps your argument is that fact that you believe that your church alone has the fullness of truth, including the dogma of the IC as being salvific which none of the rest of us assent to.

 

[barryatlake]

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.

 

[Rick Otto]

Some of call ourselves "Christian" as if we don't have a favorite adjective we modify it with. lol

 

[Root of Jesse]

Certainly not dogma according to your denomination. However, neither are these individuals heretics.

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.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

You would happen to be incorrect. I have called Mary "blessed" as well as many other positive adjectives such as holy, loving, pure, etc.

I am surprised that you know me so well as to tell me what I do and do not do. I would invite you to come and visit me and actually see me in action in real life. BTW, I do not recall ever having called myself a "Sola Scriptura". I think this is the first time anyone has called me that. I have been called many things in my life, including a Catholic priest, so I am not surprised to add this to my list of amazing titles.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

That has been a rather thorny issue. Up through the late middle ages the death of Mary was taken for granted and there is a wealth of iconography depicting it. However, with the development of other strands of Marian dogma her death became a problematic issue (the wages of sin, after all, is death, and if one has no sin then one need not receive the wages of sin) for theologians so that the concept of a deathless assumption of Mary grew to great popularity.

I have a thread about the topic here - http://www.christianforums.com/t7533697-48/ - if you would care to join the discussion.

 

[Standing Up]

So the IC is not dogma?


.

IC is a dogma of RC. In order for them to be saved (go to heaven), they must believe Mary is a virgin, before, during, and after birth.

They do not have to believe how that happened.

Some 1800 years ago, however there were only two choices about HOW, either normal birth with normal afterbirth (thus virginity ends) or abnormal, as a spirit out the side, or through the wall (thus virginity retained).

Oddly, I suppose the real question, the real dogma they haven't defined is that Christ came in the flesh (normally, by a normal birth, like His brethren).

Take a pick.