Immaculate Conception

[Cat_Herder]

I don’t know if she was or not, but I don’t believe it to be even implied in scripture, unlike the doctrine on the trinity, which clearly is.

So you are claiming that the Catholic Church says X and the Bible says Y. Now, I’m sure you’d agree that when the Apostles were preaching and writing their epistles, they were saying exactly what the Bible says with 100% accuracy. What I want to know from you, then, is how, when and why you claim that situation changed.

 

[Fragile]

I don’t really understand the nature of your question?

 

[Cat_Herder]

I don’t really understand the nature of your question?

If you would believe Peter the Apostle if he told you Mary was immaculate, why don’t you believe Pope Francis when he says the same thing?

 

[Fragile]

Oh, ok, yea, not really sold on the pope idea, and not really sure on apostolic succession, something the Orthodox hold to yet deny the IC, hmm…

 

[Cat_Herder]

Oh, ok, yea, not really sold on the pope idea, and not really sure on apostolic succession, .

If there’s no apostolic succession, how do the billions of illiterate peasants during the middle ages (when Catholicism is all there is) get saved?

something the Orthodox hold to yet deny the IC, hmm…

No, they just call it something else.

 

[Fragile]

Oh, you must think I believe the RCC to be completely in error devoid of any authentic Christian doctrine and totally apostate, not so, otherwise there would not have been a Reformation, but a complete reconstruction, something utterly impossible.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Oh, you must think I believe the RCC to be completely in error devoid of any authentic Christian doctrine and totally apostate, not so, otherwise there would not have been a Reformation

Let’s see it again…
[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

If people had “knowledge of the truth” and so were saved through the Catholic Church during the middle ages, then what was the point of the Reformation?

 

[Fragile]

There’s always need for reform at some point, even in your own Church, right?

 

[Cat_Herder]

There’s always need for reform at some point, even in your own Church, right?

I’m talking about changing doctrine. Why change doctrine if people had “knowledge of the truth” and so were saved through the Catholic Church during the middle ages?

 

[pablope]

Oh, you must think I believe the RCC to be completely in error devoid of any authentic Christian doctrine and totally apostate, not so, otherwise there would not have been a Reformation, but a complete reconstruction, something utterly impossible.

Would the Reformation do/accomplish Church reform by itself? Or would the intended reforms succeed only with the authority of the Church…or only Catholicism can make the Refomation succeed?

This is the question asked here…catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0097.html

And I would suggest that you read about Catherine of Sienna…an reformer prior to Luther…who reformed the Church…castigated two popes…and reformed the Church…without the need to cause a split in the altars.

 

[Fragile]

This gets a little tricky, I could provide some links, as you have, but I’ve already been warned under pain of death, (board death), that such links and posts are considered “contempt for Catholicism.” Which makes debate rather tricky, and leaves the door wide open to interpret any questioning of Church teaching as contempt, though I suppose it’s a great way to win any argument!

 

[pablope]

There’s always need for reform at some point, even in your own Church, right?

Reform in what…doctrines/dogmas? or the people in the church?

 

[Cat_Herder]

This gets a little tricky, I could provide some links, as you have, but I’ve already been warned under pain of death, (board death), that such links and posts are considered “contempt for Catholicism.” Which makes debate rather tricky, and leaves the door wide open to interpret any questioning of Church teaching as contempt, though I suppose it’s a great way to win any argument!

You don’t need to provide any links, just answer the question… did the Church teach the truth during the middle ages? It’s really a yes (all the truth) or no (none of it) thing.

[BIBLEDRB]John 16:13[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[pablope]

This gets a little tricky, I could provide some links, as you have, but I’ve already been warned under pain of death, (board death), that such links and posts are considered “contempt for Catholicism.” Which makes debate rather tricky, and leaves the door wide open to interpret any questioning of Church teaching as contempt, though I suppose it’s a great way to win any argument!

I have no idea what links you posted…there are some non-Cs here who have posted links but have never been banned…so it must be the material you are posting.

But we are here not to win an argument…but to present the truth of the CC.

 

[Fragile]

Would the Reformation do/accomplish Church reform by itself? Or would the intended reforms succeed only with the authority of the Church…or only Catholicism can make the Refomation succeed?

This is the question asked here…catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0097.html

And I would suggest that you read about Catherine of Sienna…an reformer prior to Luther…who reformed the Church…castigated two popes…and reformed the Church…without the need to cause a split in the altars.

The split happened 500 years prior to the Reformation, another was bound to happen.

 

[pablope]

The split happened 500 years prior to the Reformation, another was bound to happen.

Are you talking of the Schism? That split the Church…but not doctrines and dogmas…and did not cause confusion as the Reformation has.

The Reformation is another matter…it caused more confusion…than the Great Schism…and gave birth to several thousand denoms.

 

[Fragile]

I have no idea what links you posted…there are some non-Cs here who have posted links but have never been banned…so it must be the material you are posting.

But we are here not to win an argument…but to present the truth of the CC.

The link in question was from CRI, it noted heresies the RCC held to, w/out calling the Church heretical Herself…and I thought these forums existed for and welcomed debate?

 

[Fragile]

Are you talking of the Schism? That split the Church…but not doctrines and dogmas.

The Reformation is another matter.

The East/West split.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The link in question was from CRI, it noted heresies the RCC held to, w/out calling the Church heretical Herself…and I thought these forums existed for and welcomed debate?

And how do you know that whatever was on that list was a heresy?

Why is it that during the Christological controversies in the early Church, only Rome remained free of error?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=8419

With that kind of track record, and the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead the disciples into ALL truth (John 16:13), and the fact that the Bible was uncompiled, unavailable or unreadable in Europe from Calvary all the way up until the High Middle Ages (1300s+), isn’t it obvious that the Catholic Church’s teaching authority is backed by the Holy Spirit, and so you can believe the Church when She proclaims Mary is immaculate?

 

[Cat_Herder]

The East/West split.

There was zero doctrine involved in that spilt. The filioque clause was misunderstood by the Orthodox to break the Trinity when it did no such thing.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.