S
steve_b
Guest
This coming from one who said Jesus commited sin?
Go back and read what was said. This has already been addressed.
Go back and read what was said.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…5&postcount=35
- Status
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…5&postcount=35
U
Unwanted
Guest
At Nick
messiahtruth.com/gen315.html
At steve, I had a realy nice long post here, but it got deleted, so I will abriveate and expand latter
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…5&postcount=35
As I have already adressed this post, I will ask that * you* go back and re-read my posts concerning this before we move any further
I belive you are not understanding what I am saying. The original Hebrew was ipsum, not ipsa, which is what the Vulgate changed it to. Try reading the below link
messiahtruth.com/gen315.html
At steve, I had a realy nice long post here, but it got deleted, so I will abriveate and expand latter
Go back and read the definition of perfect tense for that word used…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…5&postcount=35
As I have already adressed this post, I will ask that * you* go back and re-read my posts concerning this before we move any further
J
JustaServant
Guest
Take one issue at a time as you cross the Tiber, don’t try to ingest a four course meal at once. Put certain things on the back burner and others read and study hard. Take my word for it. Converting from fundamentalism to the Catholic Church will not happen in an instant.Having been raised in a fundamentalist home, this is one doctrine I really battle with. In the course of my recent investigation into Catholicism I am finding a lot of the other unique doctrines and practices are quite reasonable…but I respectfully struggle with the idea that Mary was wholly sinless. Granted, the ark of the covenant parallel makes some sense, but then there is the ‘‘all have sinned’’ of Paul in Romans 3:23…
Any light people can shed on this one will be greatly appreciated.
Would you believe this former fundamentalist preacher is now wearing the brown scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel as I type? If you had told me that a mere three years ago I would have told you you’re crazy.
B
budgie2
Guest
You said that full of grace is in the perfect tense so that would be Hail, you have been graced.
However it may mean that she has been graced by the presence of the angel or that previously God has decided to ask her to bring Christ into the world. I don’t know if it’s true whether or not it’s the perfect tense. The Gospel of Luke does not mention anything about conception and I think this is a big leap to make that the angel actually meant she was full of grace from conception.
B
budgie2
Guest
B
budgie2
Guest
Nice to hear about your story of conversion although I haven’t read it all. I would also like my husband to convert to Catholicism although he is Methodist minister’s son. I have a couple of disagreements on Marian dogma and a few other bones to pick but generally agree with the Catholic Church.Take one issue at a time as you cross the Tiber, don’t try to ingest a four course meal at once. Put certain things on the back burner and others read and study hard. Take my word for it. Converting from fundamentalism to the Catholic Church will not happen in an instant.
Would you believe this former fundamentalist preacher is now wearing the brown scapular of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel as I type? If you had told me that a mere three years ago I would have told you you’re crazy.
M
MatthewCrossman
Guest
:tiphat:Thanks for that Steve…you sure make a pretty reasonable argument. From my vantage point, the key thing you point out is Gabriel’s message is in the perfect tense…very interesting.
I certainly don’t doubt that God could have brought about the IC…nor do I really struggle with why he would do so (the new ark of the covenant argument etc.) I guess the only thing I am uncertain about is whether he did so. Off to pray.
N
Nick_in_MB
Guest
So “ipsum” is a Hebrew word?
S
steve_b
Guest
You read the part about “perfect tense” but didn’t read the definition of perfect tense provided…Why?
The angel was addressing Mary for who she already IS in front of God. This was NOT a result of the angel’s visit. Mary was already perfectly graced for ALL time, BEFORE Gabriel’s visit. That’s why tense of words can tell you so much about context.
in the angel’s greeting to Mary, The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” [Luke 1:28].
The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word *kecharitomene *χαριτόω charitoō ]. It expresses a characteristic quality of Mary that she already has…
Tense: Perfect,
Mood: Passive
Perfect tense in Greek means having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.
You can look this up yourself bud. But don’t just say you disagree.
Therefore, the grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present and into the future.
- So, the grace Mary enjoyed from her beginning (conception), was not a result of the angel’s visit. It extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence. And the archangel Gabriel was addressing her for who she is in the sight of God.
Passive mood, means it was done to her without her doing anything on her own. It is truly a special gift from God.
Therefore, God made her without sin, just like He made Eve without sin, AND God preserved Mary without sin by a special grace perfectly applied
Your opinion is noted.
I gave you proof to backup what I said. If you disagree, don’t give me your opinion, no offense meant, you need to show proof.
D
dannyblaze
Guest
You did give a very good etymology of the term “full of grace”. But I don’t think that this person was just giving you an opinion, I could be wrong but I think the grammar is pretty clear. Gabriel was greeting Mary and about to announce the immaculate conception of Jesus not Mary. Mary lived a sinless life by the grace of God but the Luke text in no way illustrates what you make it to say.
It is funny how word studies can be very interesting but the context is what is important. Let me give you an example. A man who lives in Texas decides one day that he is going to sell his land to another fellow and in the Title for the land, the seller retains any oil rights to that land. The buyer says great and purchases the land. The buyer by the way is from Italy and wanted to buy the land because the climate is much like the climate back in his home town in Italy. He plants olive trees to produce olive oil and becomes very successful.
One day the former owner of the land who holds the oil rights to the land sends a letter through his attorney and demands all the money made from the new owner’s olive oil profits. The former owner bases this on his Title rights to the oil on the land. This of course ends up in court.
During the court proceeding the former owner’s attorney argues that the “oil” also includes olive oil and proceeds to put an expert witness on the stand who is an etymologist who proceeds to explain the etymology of the word “oil” which “Etymology :Middle English oile, from Old French, from Latin oleum olive oil, from Greek elaion, from elaia olive”. Well to no one’s amazement, the case was laughed out of court because the context of the word “oil” in the State of Texas has the common understanding of the “oil” that we run our cars on today or crude oil.
I know this was lengthy but I think the point is made that you cannot take a word or phrase from two thousand years ago and try to make it something that it is not. The angel Gabriel is making an announcement about the the Savior who is to be born of Mary the virgin. He will be conceived by the Holy Spirit and thus fulfills a prophesy of the Old Testament. Nothing more and nothing less.
While I do respect your argument, as the other fellow said, you are really stretching the context to fit a pretext and or a presupposition that just does not fit the context of what you call the Annunciation plain and simple.
I do not claim to be a scholar by any means but I can read and have a decent working knowledge of the English vocabulary. Now unless the translation you are using is faulty, then I think the only conclusion that can be made is that Gabriel’s words are part of an announcement and nothing more, of course this is just my opinion.
Peace in Christ the true immaculate conception.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Many would argue that St. John the Baptist was born sinless due to be sanctified in the womb, but this is wholly different from the IC.
S
StevieD
Guest
I once watched an Archbishop talking to a TV interviewer who was an atheist. The atheist mentioned the Immaculate Conception but it was clear that he thought that the term referred to the virgin birth of Jesus. The Archbishop began to explain and asked “Do you believe that we are born in original sin” and the response was “Of course not!”, at which the Archbishop said "Ah well you do believe in the immaculate conception but you attribute it to everyone instead of just Mary.
S
steve_b
Guest
My bad. I should have said conceived.
S
steve_b
Guest
the angel’s greeting refers to Mary’s state of grace… past present and future before Jesus is conceived in Mary’s womb and not as a result of Gabriel’s visit.
When Mary said yes…THEN, the HS overshadowed her and Jesus was conceived in her womb. Jesus was not incarnate in her before she said yes.
The doctrine of the IC refers to Mary.
The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word *kecharitomene *χαριτόω charitoō ]. It expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.
Lk 1:28 is a KEY passage used to explain the doctrine.
ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/marya2.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
answered below
Consider the following. (emphasis mine)
for full context
catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0709btb.asp
D
dannyblaze
Guest
Thank you for taking the time to present your (name removed by moderator)ut.
While I do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, only that of Jesus, I do believe that Mary lived a life that is an example for us to follow and pattern ourselves after.
One of the main issue I have with the Catholic teaching on this matter is not so much the teaching of the Church but the requirement of Catholics to “accept and defend” this doctrine even though former Popes made it clear that neither those who believed and taught it and those who didn’t were not allowed to label either side as heretics. But in 1854 or so, I am sure you will correct me on the date if it is wrong, The Pope made it a dogma that all Catholics had to believe in and defend. This is very confusing to say the least. Then in the 1870s the Pope once again made it dogma the teaching of the infallibility of the Pope, not to mention an alleged apparition of Mary stating the she was the immaculate conception. Now my chronology may be a bit off but you know what I am saying.
Never a forced dogma of the Church until 1800 plus years later. I know for a fact that historically that this teaching was not even a standard accepted teaching of the Church but was the idea of an Abbot in the eight or ninth century and it was met with great opposition from one of the Doctors of the Church if I remember correctly.
This is where the Catholic Church loses me and I think loses many because this practice seems to be going against not only the teachings of Sacred Scripture which is not subject to debate, but Sacred Tradition up and until the 19th century. Yes, it was a doctrine or concept taught starting back in the 8th or 9th century, but never ever accepted by the Bishops of the world wide Church of God up and until the 1800s.
I am sure you will offer more to this dialog and I look forward to it. I will offer more specific examples in the following post as soon as I can get the time to sit down and organize it.
I think that there are some very important issues that need to be addressed for there to be real unity between East and West and one of those matters is the IC and Papal Infallibility which is a novel teaching in the eyes of the Eastern Church, but we will stay on the IC for now.
Peace in Christ,
Danny.
While I do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, only that of Jesus, I do believe that Mary lived a life that is an example for us to follow and pattern ourselves after.
One of the main issue I have with the Catholic teaching on this matter is not so much the teaching of the Church but the requirement of Catholics to “accept and defend” this doctrine even though former Popes made it clear that neither those who believed and taught it and those who didn’t were not allowed to label either side as heretics. But in 1854 or so, I am sure you will correct me on the date if it is wrong, The Pope made it a dogma that all Catholics had to believe in and defend. This is very confusing to say the least. Then in the 1870s the Pope once again made it dogma the teaching of the infallibility of the Pope, not to mention an alleged apparition of Mary stating the she was the immaculate conception. Now my chronology may be a bit off but you know what I am saying.
Never a forced dogma of the Church until 1800 plus years later. I know for a fact that historically that this teaching was not even a standard accepted teaching of the Church but was the idea of an Abbot in the eight or ninth century and it was met with great opposition from one of the Doctors of the Church if I remember correctly.
This is where the Catholic Church loses me and I think loses many because this practice seems to be going against not only the teachings of Sacred Scripture which is not subject to debate, but Sacred Tradition up and until the 19th century. Yes, it was a doctrine or concept taught starting back in the 8th or 9th century, but never ever accepted by the Bishops of the world wide Church of God up and until the 1800s.
I am sure you will offer more to this dialog and I look forward to it. I will offer more specific examples in the following post as soon as I can get the time to sit down and organize it.
I think that there are some very important issues that need to be addressed for there to be real unity between East and West and one of those matters is the IC and Papal Infallibility which is a novel teaching in the eyes of the Eastern Church, but we will stay on the IC for now.
Peace in Christ,
Danny.
M
mardukm
Guest
Assuming it is true, why shouldn’t Catholics “accept and defend” it?
I think you need to read the history of the Ecumenical Councils before making this statement. Dogmas always had the element of being enforced. Perhaps you are talking about the IC specifically, and not dogma in general? There is little difference between a constant teaching of the Church and a dogmatized teaching. It is simply that a dogmatized teaching has been formally decreed. Take the dogma of the Assumption for instance. To Catholics, it is dogma, but to Orthodox, it is not. Nevertheless, the Orthodox understand it to be a constant teaching of the Church, and if you were an Orthodox who went around preaching that the Assumption is a false doctrine, you will very likely be excommunicated.
This would not be a true assertion. As early as the fourth century, St. Ephraem taught that before their respective cosmic decision, Mary and Eve were (in his words) “UTTERLY EQUAL.” In the West, St. Augustine explicitly excluded Mary in his discussion on Original Sin. In the fifth century, Patriarch St. Proclus of Constantinople taught that Mary was formed without stain. In the 7th century, St. John Damascene taught the same. In the 8th century, Archbishop St. Andrew of Crete taught the same (he called it, “the immaculate fruition”). In the 9th century, Patriarch St. Photius taught the same. In the 10th century, Patriarch St. Euthymes of Constantinople taught the same. In the 15th century, St. Gregory Palamas taught the same. These are the ones just off the top of my head. There are NUMEROUS others in the Eastern Tradition. And these did not teach a merely implied belief based on statements of Mary being “All-holy” or “All-immaculate.” The statements from these Fathers are EXPLICITLY with regards to the sinless state of Mary from the moment of her existence.
The 3 medieval Latins Fathers (St. Aquinas, St. Bernard, and St. Bonaventure) who some claim taught against the Immaculate Conception were not really doing so. The dogma of the IC, as explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia, teaches that Mary sanctified from the moment of her spiritual conception (i.e., her ensoulment). This is exactly what the 3 medieval Latin Fathers believed. It is simply that back then, many Latins believed that ensoulment did not occur at the same time as physical conception, but rather at a much later time than physical conception. Now, we understand that spiritual and physical conception occur at the same moment. Thus, there was no difference in the essence of the belief (that Mary’s sancitification occured at the moment of ensoulment).
The teaching was pretty darn well unanimous and consistent throughout the ages.
Looking forward to future discussion with you.
Blessings
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
, as we will in the second comming. In a sense for Christ, this “was HIS second comming” all though not the one spoke of in the bible as the “final Judgement.”
Love and prayer’s
Well, what’s the point of “not suffering decay” if He was scourged and punched and had thorns pounded into His head? In other words, clearly most of the wreckage of his body was repaired before He reappeared in glorified form to the Apostles after the resurrection. Holes in His hands and feet and sides were only a tiny amount of the damage.
The point of Christ’s tortures is that He suffered extreme physical damage. Why would God bother preserving “ground meat” from “decay” after it has been ground up?
Inside of this concept – that Christ’s extremely-badly-ripped-up flesh did not “decay” – I smell the same “creeping Gnosticism” hidden in the concept of the miraculous birth (not miraculous “conception,” but miraculous birth).
We wonder, “If God protected Christ from the traumas of birth, did He protect Him from the traumas of death?” Similarly, here: If flesh that has been chopped-up by scourging, punching and stabbing with thorns, like meat going through a meat grinder, is prevented from rotting after death, was Christ somehow protected from suffering?
That’s where that business of “no decay” seems to go.
In my opinion, God is going to keep things clear. No ifs, ands or buts. No doubts. No suspicions. His Son suffered horribly.
S
steve_b
Guest
:tiphat: you’re welcome
You actually said it as follows
I’m interested, how do you defend THAT belief that Mary lived a sinless life, especially since Paul said all have sinned? What proofs do YOU use
As a math teacher would say, be sure and show your work
Are you by chance thinking of what EO Bp Ware wrote in his book “the Orthodox Church”?
He wrote (emphasis mine)
The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words,does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing**.**
For reference and context (scroll down to “Mother of God”)
from E.O. Bp Kallistos Ware book intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/__P1B.HTM
I find his comments interesting, because he says EO tradition and language describes IC.
Why is this confusing? The Church always gives reason and defends her beliefs. And Catholics are to obey.
BTW, when you say in your bio that you are in transition, could you clarity that?
Do you believe the bible is infallible? Y/N
If you say yes, then when did infallibility end?
When Jesus said, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood … is this a suggestion or is this a must belief? Was Jesus using force?
As you can imagine, these subjects you mention have been discussed all over these forums thoroughly over the years. I think it just gets better and better
D
dannyblaze
Guest
I just don’t care to take this further because it will just be a back and forth matter that will not edify anything but our egos. Paul warned us about arguing over words. I just don’t accept the Roman Catholic teaching on the IC as you call it, but I do tend towards the Eastern Orthodox understanding and especially the quote that you gave from the EO Bishop that “if one is impelled to believe in the immaculate conception they would not be labeled a heretic”.
It is a fact that since the Pope made it dogma in 1854, that those who are impelled to not believe in the IC are in fact in sin because the Roman church says otherwise. Interesting. The EO has the upper hand right now in my mind because they know that this matter is one of Theological opinion and that is is. The RCC on the other hand has lifted this opinion to the status of a teaching one must accept if they are to be a Roman Catholic. I have even been told my Catholics that I am a heretic because I don’t accept this teaching.
You wanted to know what my profile means “in transition”? I was studying with the Roman Catholic Church for the last two years, was almost at the point of seriously considering communion with the Roman Church but that has changed. I won’t do into detail but I will just make a quick statement.
Most Catholics I have discussed different teachings of the Catholic Church don’t even believe or agree with what the church teaches. 54% of the Catholic Church voted against the teachings of the Catholic Church and in our RCIA class I got very tired of the Nun and Priest talking about women priest, how all religions are good and that you only need to be a good person and a good Catholic, Baptist, Buddist etc and you will be okay.
I still love the Catholic Church but I have a family that I have to protect and that is why I am studying with the Orthodox Church because they even follow basically the same teachings of the Catholic Church but take it further and live what they teach. Our Lady is honored, the Divine Liturgy is superior (in my opinion) to that of the Mass that we experienced in the local Catholic Church. It seems to be more real and faithful to the teachings of the church. I know there are problems in both but I have to admit, the Orthodox Church seems to be more heavenly minded and not so caught up in politics and a social gospel that really seems nothing more that a Christianized form of socialism.
Wow, I just let out a lot. Sorry about that but you can see that there are some issues here. I love to pray the Rosary and love those things I gained from our experience with the RCC but right now I just will not go back to another RCIA class.
Anyways, I am done and moving on.
Peace in Christ and all the best.
It is a fact that since the Pope made it dogma in 1854, that those who are impelled to not believe in the IC are in fact in sin because the Roman church says otherwise. Interesting. The EO has the upper hand right now in my mind because they know that this matter is one of Theological opinion and that is is. The RCC on the other hand has lifted this opinion to the status of a teaching one must accept if they are to be a Roman Catholic. I have even been told my Catholics that I am a heretic because I don’t accept this teaching.
You wanted to know what my profile means “in transition”? I was studying with the Roman Catholic Church for the last two years, was almost at the point of seriously considering communion with the Roman Church but that has changed. I won’t do into detail but I will just make a quick statement.
Most Catholics I have discussed different teachings of the Catholic Church don’t even believe or agree with what the church teaches. 54% of the Catholic Church voted against the teachings of the Catholic Church and in our RCIA class I got very tired of the Nun and Priest talking about women priest, how all religions are good and that you only need to be a good person and a good Catholic, Baptist, Buddist etc and you will be okay.
I still love the Catholic Church but I have a family that I have to protect and that is why I am studying with the Orthodox Church because they even follow basically the same teachings of the Catholic Church but take it further and live what they teach. Our Lady is honored, the Divine Liturgy is superior (in my opinion) to that of the Mass that we experienced in the local Catholic Church. It seems to be more real and faithful to the teachings of the church. I know there are problems in both but I have to admit, the Orthodox Church seems to be more heavenly minded and not so caught up in politics and a social gospel that really seems nothing more that a Christianized form of socialism.
Wow, I just let out a lot. Sorry about that but you can see that there are some issues here. I love to pray the Rosary and love those things I gained from our experience with the RCC but right now I just will not go back to another RCIA class.
Anyways, I am done and moving on.
Peace in Christ and all the best.
M
Matariel
Guest
No, they did not. People who are no longer Catholic and have left the Church to join Protestantism or nothing or another religion often still call themselves Catholic (I personally know a Baptist and an Evangelical that both call them and their families “Catholic”, as well as several people who don’t ever attend church that call themselves “Catholic”. This seriously disrupts and confuses the polls. The majority of faithful, practicing Catholics did not vote for Obama.
Also, the Eastern Orthodox churches lack one of the Four Marks of the Church: Unity. There are 15 or so Eastern Orthodox churches, and they have jurisdictional division, some even have doctrinal division. They are schismatic. Also there are liberals infecting the Eastern Orthodox churches in the U.S.
You should have complained to the Bishop about the unorthodoxy in the RCIA, and then found a more orthodox RCIA programme.
- Status