F
flyersfan1088
Guest
It wouldn’t hurt you to read the link in post#188 too
- Status
S
sandusky
Guest
Why? Does the link have a “different interpretation” concerning the prophecy?
F
flyersfan1088
Guest
No it doesn’t. The prophecy isn’t where your understanding falls short.
Either read it or don’t. It’s pointless to discuss something with you that you haven’t read.
S
sandusky
Guest
That’s what you quoted from my post.
You can post your point from your link, if you’d like; if not, then what I’ve said stands.
F
flyersfan1088
Guest
There are many points, and sorry, I quoted the wrong thing from your post. Since you are unwilling to click your mouse, I guess I will have to post it for you. As a former Catholic, you should have known all of this anyway. Since you didn’t, don’t you at least owe it to yourself to know what you left behind?
In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.
Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ’s passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary’s soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, “In Luc. hom. xvii”).
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary’s soul (Epistle 259).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also “In Matt.”, hom. 4).
But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science. If we were to attempt to set forth the full doctrine of the Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which includes particularly the implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages. In the testimony of the Fathers two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:22).
Mary as the second Eve
This celebrated comparison between Eve, while yet immaculate and incorrupt – that is to say, not subject to original sin – and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:
Justin (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100),
Irenaeus (Contra Haereses, III, xxii, 4),
Tertullian (De carne Christi, xvii),
Julius Firmicus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses, xii, 29),
Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).
cont…
F
flyersfan1088
Guest
The absolute purity of Mary
Patristic writings on Mary’s purity abound.
The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, “Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me”);
Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings (“Hom. i in diversa”);
Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
Maximus of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace (“Nom. viii de Natali Domini”);
Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God (“Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.”).
In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin “except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned” (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).
Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, “Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.”);
it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, “Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.”, I, 3);
she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, “Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.”, ii).
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary’s grace and sanctity: “Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity …, alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . … flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate” (“Precationes ad Deiparam” in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate (“Carmina Nisibena”).
Jacob of Sarug says that “the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary”. It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin (“the sentence against Adam and Eve”) at the Annunciation.
Patristic writings on Mary’s purity abound.
The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, “Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me”);
Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings (“Hom. i in diversa”);
Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
Maximus of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace (“Nom. viii de Natali Domini”);
Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God (“Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.”).
In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin “except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned” (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).
Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, “Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.”);
it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, “Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.”, I, 3);
she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, “Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.”, ii).
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary’s grace and sanctity: “Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity …, alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . … flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate” (“Precationes ad Deiparam” in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate (“Carmina Nisibena”).
Jacob of Sarug says that “the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary”. It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin (“the sentence against Adam and Eve”) at the Annunciation.
K
Krocker
Guest
First, your generic Christian niceties and catch-phrases mean nothing – e.g., we’re guided by the Holy Spirit. Don’t you think Protestants believe the same thing? Don’t you also think Protestants think they’re right and you’re wrong? So, relying on your generic Christian sayings get you nowhere.
Second, I have answered your question three times. The Bible doesn’t mention even ONE of the generic “traditions” you rely upon. A general notion of “tradition” is not sufficient support for anyone not willing to simply follow by BLIND faith. You can read my three other posts to get the rest of my response.
Since you raised the point, however, you never answered my question – name even one or two of the “traditions” that were being talked about in the passages you quoted.
K
Krocker
Guest
Without getting into what I believe personally, they throw out these “silly” arguments because the notion that any MAN is infallible is “silly.” Excepting Jesus, every single person that has ever lived is fallible. Even your allegedly sometimes infallible Pope is fallible most of the time. But, curiously enough, you’re infallible when anyone tries to question you. That premise is “silly” to most Protestants and that is why you get silly scenarios.
And, St. Lucy, I’ve already pegged you as the type who will give me the generic verse from which alleged infallibility doctrine comes from. I’ll save you the trouble. There is no need. Yet, again, that is another thread for another time.
K
Krocker
Guest
Hello, thanks for responding. I’m not trying to be rude, but I’m not persuaded either. Your response is again just filled with generic Christian catch-phrases of seeking Truth, etc. The Truth only means what YOU think it means if you’re Catholic. I can assure you Protestants use the same notion of “Truth” to reject Catholic doctrines. So, where does that leave us? You claim your truth, Protestants claim their truth and nobody gets anywhere.
My point is this: Would Jesus Christ still be the only way to Salvation if Mary never existed and God created him out of the ground as with Adam? Of course He would be. So why all the hubbub about Immaculate Conception?
A
AllSaints1631
Guest
That’s fine if you disagree with it, but in the church I used to attend, there were many disagreements amongst Catholics over core Catholic issues such as contraception, the Eucharist and such. The church can claim that the belief system is consistent but it doesn’t change the fact that it is really not consistent amongst those who call themselves Catholics and who go to mass at least every Sunday.Count me in disagreeing with this statement too. And a bunch of my Catholic friends too.
K
Krocker
Guest
A couple of points. I already told you where to find the “essentials”. Start with your own Apostles Creed.
And as far as the necessity of Mary lacking original sin, I’ll give you a quick background on chromosomal research. A woman has XX chromosomes. A man has XY chromosomes, with the Y chromosome coming from the male donor. No matter whether Mary had sin or not, she could not be the source of Jesus because she cannot supply the Y chromosome. The fact that Jesus was in Mary at all was a miracle of God. THAT is the miracle. Not whether Mary had sin or not. God had to create the miracle of Jesus REGARDLESS of whether Mary had sin – the Y chromosome had to get in there somehow.
So, again, what does Mary’s original sin or lack thereof have to do with your belief and devotion to Jesus? And I do not believe generic notions of receiving the “Full Truth” to be sufficient. That is no different than me telling you that the “Full Truth” was revealed in the Bible and not by men who deem themselves infallible – or some such other Protestant belief. I know what kind of reaction that would get on this site, and it wouldn’t be pretty.
K
Krocker
Guest
The inspired word of God is not “accurate”? I thought we were in agreement on that, I guess not. Also, I don’t have a problem with Tradition, I really don’t. The problem is equating Tradition with scripture. It cannot be done for the reasons I’ve stated repeatedly, for which I’ve begged a response, and have yet to get one. That is why I plead evasiveness … and not just you. But, I will give you a break since you called me out and everything.I wouldn’t argue the Bible is the most accurate book. Who does? Go ahead and “start” with it if you want…it ought to lead you into the Catholic Church if you read the whole thing.But I don’t see anyone discouraging you from starting with the Bible…I see people taking issue with your apparent denial that Tradition is also Revelation.
But it is incorrect to think a Tradition was “created” in 1854. That is not how it works. Dates of definition far succeed dates of origin. All Sacred Tradition is apostolic in origin.
And Origen is a fine example of God’s revelation passing through Tradition, and here you are citing that to me as if I disagree.So we both accept Tradition when it comes to the Canon of Scripture, and that is comforting. Plus he cites the Deuterocanon as Scripture numerous times.
So applying your trust in Origen, you can see many, many Christian references to Mary and her Immaculate Conception prior to 1854 in various references. Centuries and centuries prior. And of course there are the allusions in Scripture that you deny. But nevertheless, you know this, do you not? The idea was not “created” in 1854.
And please stop with the “you are being evasive” ad hominems every single time. I feel like I’m talking with James White.
R
ralphinal
Guest
If someone has already done this, I am sorry, but the thread is long and I might have missed it. May I invert the question?
What does it hurt for us to believe in this tradition? Is our rational flawed as to why we think it is important? Does it hurt your faith that we do so? Is it problematic to your theology?
To me, her sinlessness shows me one more way Christ was fully human. He made sure his mother would get into heaven. Just my opinion. Her lack of concupiscence also made her life easier. She could stay focused on God through all of her heartaches and pains. She was not a distraction but a help.
K
Krocker
Guest
Great post. I almost entirely agree with you. Of course I would dispute that the Catholic Church as it exists today is the Church that was created by Jesus, but that is another thread for another time (I think those that believe the “essentials” I discussed would be the Church, but I’ll leave it at that). Thank you so much for your respectful response though.
And I’m not trying to be difficult here, but it still doesn’t answer the fact that the Bible is more historically verifiable and verified than any other tradition, written or oral, in the history of the world. If you choose to believe that the Holy Spirit has just chosen to guide you over other Christians, that’s fine – but again, you can be assured other non-Catholics believe the same thing. So where does that leave us — he said, she said.
K
Krocker
Guest
It doesn’t hurt at all, so long as it does not contradict scripture – the most verifiable and verified writing in the history of the world. My problem is not that Catholics believe in tradition, it’s that Catholics give it equal weight to scripture. The IC, first written about in 348, and made infallible in 1854 should not be given the same weight as writings from the 40s. That’s all. Believe what you want, but don’t excommunicate others because they think the IC is a stretch.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Ok. So, if we as Catholics say that it is a part of our faith, should it not be required that ALL Catholics beleive it?
K
Krocker
Guest
st lucy,
i’m sorry. i re-read my post to you and i think it sounded rude. my apologies. i will try to be more considerate in the future.
i’m sorry. i re-read my post to you and i think it sounded rude. my apologies. i will try to be more considerate in the future.
R
RomanPL
Guest
I didn’t read all 15 pages but I’m just on fire whenever I hear that nothing else is needed … works are needed. Jesus was very clear about what we need to do (visit the sick, those in prison, clothed the naked, feed the hungry, etc.) in order to hear “welcome.” You will not hear “welcome to heaven…” if you don’t do it. Just saying: Jesus is my savior is never good enough! Are those words omitted on purpose??? Nobody puts them together with “accepting Jesus as own Savior” and you’re done - saved!
C
CesarAugusto
Guest
Hi Krocker, thanks for your kindness.
You know that Truth is objective. Things either are or are not, according to the principle of non-contradiction. The question is not about my truth versus your truth, but that there is Truth. I think we both agree with that.
My point, which I don’t think you addressed, is that you cannot reject one doctrine about which you are not sure as being unimportant. If it is true and divinely revealed, it is important for the simple reason of it being true and divinely revealed.
You posed a question that basically implies that if we know that Jesus is the only way to salvation, other doctrines are unimportant. If that’s the case, we can scrap the whole Bible, including the 10 commandments, since they don’t mention salvation by Jesus.
My point is, revealed Truth is important whether we see its importance or not. We can disagree on what doctrines are true, but that doesn’t mean that:
a) they don’t matter; and
b) their being true depends on our acceptance of them as such.
Catholics and Protestants will debate whether this or that is true, but because some doctrines are less unanimously accepted by Christians it doesn’t make them irrelevant or unimportant.
Again, seek fullness of True always.
K
Krocker
Guest
I agree. My concern is that, in my opinion, Catholics and Protestants are focusing too much time on some of the less-evident “truths”. Jesus is God, that is true, and we agree. Jesus is the only way to salvation, that is true, and we agree. The great commission is true, and we agree. The Immaculate Conception may be true and we disagree, and I think there is a reasonable argument on either side. Disagreement on these issues doesn’t have to be a bad thing. The Bible is complex and difficult to understand. I have a hard time believing any one person or faith sect has all the right answers, no questions asked. I’m sure you disagree and that’s okay, just my opinion.
- Status