B
brb3
Guest
Are u the official Church inquisitor @ CAF?
If so, show me scripture to disproved my answers .
If so, show me scripture to disproved my answers .
- Status
B
brb3
Guest
Mary may well have been taken up to heaven. Wasn’t Elijah and Enoch …and perhaps Moses ?
I pray she was … I wish u/ I also are, … but do we have proof thereof. Wouldn’t John of talked and written of this matter ?
I pray she was … I wish u/ I also are, … but do we have proof thereof. Wouldn’t John of talked and written of this matter ?
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
The Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth, brb3, not you, not me, nor the Scriptures. So if you make an interpretation of Scripture that is different from that held by the Church, then sorry, no matter how good or clever you argumentation is, you’re wrong, and the Church is right.
That’s how it is.
Not only that, but it was through the special charism of St. Peter through the Papacy that the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary were defined. And as we know, Jesus said,
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:18-19
So answer this: do you believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, or not?
brb3, don’t do this. Why cannot you answer such simple questions?
“If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Timothy 3:14If so, show me scripture to disproved my answers .
The Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth, brb3, not you, not me, nor the Scriptures. So if you make an interpretation of Scripture that is different from that held by the Church, then sorry, no matter how good or clever you argumentation is, you’re wrong, and the Church is right.
That’s how it is.
Not only that, but it was through the special charism of St. Peter through the Papacy that the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary were defined. And as we know, Jesus said,
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:18-19
So answer this: do you believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, or not?
B
brb3
Guest
Why did the Popes wait so long to declare… if John the Apostle knew of this ?
Doesn’t that give u some serious concern ?
Doesn’t that give u some serious concern ?
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
Look at it this way. I believe that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces. You don’t. But it’s ok, we both did not commit any sin. There is no formal definition nor condemnation yet of this doctrine, so you and I can believe it or not and it won’t matter, so long as what we are doing is what we believe to be for the greater glory of God.
Besides, look at all the other doctrines of the Catholic Church. When was the canon of Scriptures defined formally? Only in the Council of Trent, 1500 hundred years after Christ’s death and resurrection. The Trinity? Three hundred years after. And so on.
No not really. It actually makes me smile. It just means the Catholic Church likes her children to be free thinkers.
Look at it this way. I believe that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces. You don’t. But it’s ok, we both did not commit any sin. There is no formal definition nor condemnation yet of this doctrine, so you and I can believe it or not and it won’t matter, so long as what we are doing is what we believe to be for the greater glory of God.
Besides, look at all the other doctrines of the Catholic Church. When was the canon of Scriptures defined formally? Only in the Council of Trent, 1500 hundred years after Christ’s death and resurrection. The Trinity? Three hundred years after. And so on.
B
brb3
Guest
Here’s the rub, the crux of these Marian declarations. Do they agree with scripture & the very earliest ECF teachings in 1st century of Christianity ?
Do they conflict with them ? …if so, Paul & Christ teach we must reject them.
Why take a chance believing something we can’t square with our early Church roots ?
Even Mary would understand our concerns of possible message fabrication over the ages.
Do they conflict with them ? …if so, Paul & Christ teach we must reject them.
Why take a chance believing something we can’t square with our early Church roots ?
Even Mary would understand our concerns of possible message fabrication over the ages.
N
nuntym
Guest
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Catholics do not pray to Mary ‘instead of God’.
B
brb3
Guest
OK … for starts, the very first verse, Gen. 3:15 … claims “enmity” means Jesus.
Does seem correct to you ?when Christ is the King of Peace, … not of Division and Strife !
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
Huh, I would have never interpreted that verse that way. However, it IS true that this is the only time that God made an enmity between anyone. And still, Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34).OK … for starts, the very first verse, Gen. 3:15 … claims “enmity” means Jesus.
when Christ is the King of Peace, … not of Division and Strife !
B
brb3
Guest
TIM tells us he does… in a recent post above.
But, in the main … most don’t call much on Mary. She really doesn’t hold the clout with Catholic laity or priests … that I was led to believe by Protestants, when I first entered the Church.
B
brb3
Guest
Perhaps the enmity is satan’s. Enmity held towards Mary’s children vis-a-vis Adam/Eve’s children [which listened and obeyed him, rather than God].
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
scripturecatholic’s point is that the enmity is between Satan and Mary (which I have heard before), and the nature of that enmity is Christ (which I have never heard before).
Although your interpretation is not bad, either.
Uhm could be, although I also have not heard of that interpretation either.
scripturecatholic’s point is that the enmity is between Satan and Mary (which I have heard before), and the nature of that enmity is Christ (which I have never heard before).
Although your interpretation is not bad, either.
N
nuntym
Guest
B
brb3
Guest
Post 188#+JMJ+
Who’s TIM? The Illusive Man?
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
Ahhh. I am consecrated to Mary too, you know, but in a different way. It’s all in the link in my sig.
B
brb3
Guest
Yes, but not as you might of though.
Lets examine scripture on this matter. Luke1:35 And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”
Key points in the above: The angel is telling her what IS TO HAPPEN, in future tense. All will be the result of the HOLY SPIRIT coming to her [future tense]. She is what, — a 15 yo girl perhaps, at that point in her life.
Does anything here suggest she had a IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 15 year prior ?
On the other hand, look at Luke’s account … regarding birth of John the Baptizer.
Luke 1:5-6 Zechariah, … had a wife … and her name was Elizabeth. AND THEY WERE BOTH RIGHEOUS BEFORE GOD, WALKING IN ALL THE COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES OF THE LORD ‘blameless’ . — [sinless right ?]. This ‘blameless’ status … sets the stage for a miraculous event to happen to them.
Now verse 6. AND BOTH WERE BARREN, AND BOTH ADVANCED IN YEARS.
ZECHARIAH is a priest … so we are next told.
And, then the angel Gabriel tells him about the coming child in verse 15-17. “AND HE WILL BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, EVEN FROM THE WOMB. … AND HE WILL GO BEFORE HIM IN THE SPIRIT AND POWER OF ELIJAH, … TO MAKE READY FOR THE LORD A PEOPLE PREPARED.”
So, scripture in case of JOHN, clearly tells of his immaculate conception … but, does not do so about Mary. John’s parents were clearly barren thruout their lives … and now too aged to have children by normative means. Clearly John was conceived by H.S. …w/o sperm or ova from parents. John clearly was an IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED human… as taught in SACRED SCRIPTURE.
Am I wrong ?
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I ignore it, mostly. We are required to believe in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. That’s it. No Rosaries required.
Here’s where I don’t ignore it: I’m a woman, as is obvious from my name, I guess, and I have a bunch of women I talk to, Mary, Magdalene, Faustina, they are my friends and mentors and heroes and models. Mary, in my personal view, is my Mom, too. Sometimes, she’s the one I want to talk to.
Anyway, how you do or don’t deal with Mary is up to you. I wouldn’t allow it to discommode me so much if I were you.
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
Immaculate Conception means that even while in the womb Mary never had the stain of Original Sin on her soul.
Also, note Gabriel;s greeting to her, which came BEFORE being told that she would be overshadowed by the Holy Spirit: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”
John, on the other hand, only became filled with the Holy Spirit on the sixth month of being inside Elizabeth’s womb, because the word of Gabriel was only fulfilled with the Visitation of Mary on him being filled with the Holy Spirit.
About John being not from sperm and ovum but from the Holy Spirit only: I seriously doubt t. I have not heard of any ECF nor Church proclamation interpreting it as such, but more of similar to what Abraham and Sarah went through in the OT.
Not exactly.Yes, but not as you might of though.
Lets examine scripture on this matter. Luke1:35 And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”
Key points in the above: The angel is telling her what IS TO HAPPEN, in future tense. All will be the result of the HOLY SPIRIT coming to her [future tense]. She is what, — a 15 yo girl perhaps, at that point in her life.
Does anything here suggest she had a IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 15 year prior ?
On the other hand, look at Luke’s account … regarding birth of John the Baptizer.
Luke 1:5-6 Zechariah, … had a wife … and her name was Elizabeth. AND THEY WERE BOTH RIGHEOUS BEFORE GOD, WALKING IN ALL THE COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES OF THE LORD ‘blameless’ . — [sinless right ?]. This ‘blameless’ status … sets the stage for a miraculous event to happen to them.
Now verse 6. AND BOTH WERE BARREN, AND BOTH ADVANCED IN YEARS.
ZECHARIAH is a priest … so we are next told.
And, then the angel Gabriel tells him about the coming child in verse 15-17. “AND HE WILL BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, EVEN FROM THE WOMB. … AND HE WILL GO BEFORE HIM IN THE SPIRIT AND POWER OF ELIJAH, … TO MAKE READY FOR THE LORD A PEOPLE PREPARED.”
So, scripture in case of JOHN, clearly tells of his immaculate conception … but, does not do so about Mary. John’s parents were clearly barren thruout their lives … and now too aged to have children by normative means. Clearly John was conceived by H.S. …w/o sperm or ova from parents. John clearly was an IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED human… as taught in SACRED SCRIPTURE.
Am I wrong ?
Immaculate Conception means that even while in the womb Mary never had the stain of Original Sin on her soul.
Also, note Gabriel;s greeting to her, which came BEFORE being told that she would be overshadowed by the Holy Spirit: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”
John, on the other hand, only became filled with the Holy Spirit on the sixth month of being inside Elizabeth’s womb, because the word of Gabriel was only fulfilled with the Visitation of Mary on him being filled with the Holy Spirit.
About John being not from sperm and ovum but from the Holy Spirit only: I seriously doubt t. I have not heard of any ECF nor Church proclamation interpreting it as such, but more of similar to what Abraham and Sarah went through in the OT.
C
Cranch
Guest
You are mistaken in this. Mary, exalted as she was by God, was born a human creature through normal means to human parents. As such she required salvation like all men. In light of her future role as Mother of God, however, she was granted the saving grace made possible through Jesus in advance. For a Catholic, acceptance of this doctrine is not optional. That there is no wiggle room here is made clear in Ineffabilis Deus, the encyclical which formally defined as doctrine this long-held belief:
Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, 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 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.”
Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.
The idea that Mary needed a Savior is not a recent one. Andrew of Crete, though not sharing the western concept of original sin, wrote in the 8th century:
This is Mary the Theotókos, the common refuge of all Christians, the first to be liberated from the original fall of our first parents.
As early as the 4th century, Gregory Nazianzen speaks of the purification of the Virgin Mary:
He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body…
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as we understand it today was clearly outlined by the great Franciscan John Duns Scotus over 700 years ago:
As a consequence of common generation, Mary would have had to contract original sin had she not been preserved by the grace of the Mediator.
- Status