Immaculate Conception

[PRmerger]

and if what the Church teaches concerning the Eucharist is true, it would be extremely important! I believe they said the same thing concerning baptism…

Indeed.

If the Eucharist is NOT true, then it is the most horrific thing in the world for a Christian: idolatry.

 

[Fragile]

Careful, that could be perceived as an insult against the Holy Spirit, since it was the Spirit’s job to lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13).

That’s another thing, there are a myriad of things Catholics seem to think are a, if not thee, “Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit!”

 

[pablope]

Well, at least we are confused more profoundly, and on a higher level!

Oaky…so do you thing deeping your confusion…how is this bringing you to the truth?

And do you think being more consfused is a good thins? And how is this bringing you to a higher level?

 

[JohnTomHoc]

To be honest, I don’t know what to believe anymore! I find myself defending the Church on Protestant forums, and the Protestants on Catholic forums! The truth is, both sides are often misrepresented. As for myself, I’ve read the apologists on both sides, and they both raise valid points and make good arguments, and they both make silly arguments w/enough holes in them to look like Swiss cheese! Which is why I am not at all surprised that some having gone through this leave the Christian faith all together…

“But at night, when all the world’s asleep, the questions run too deep, for such a simple man!”

There’s a danger of loss of faith through a love of controversy, which lends itself to think too much of our own intellectual or spiritual powers & less about our utter reliance on divine grace. The sermons of Bl. John Henry Newman are a good antidote for this, because his mental gifts were as great as any of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church, and he feared precisely to make a misstep based merely on his own deductions rather than one made in faith.

(Nice musical reference, btw)

 

[Fragile]

I don’t think it’s my love for controversy, (though I am a bit of a troublemaker! ), it’s being bombarded w/a plethora of information,(we want information, information, information…who are you?!), and trying to process it all leads to being “sleepless in Cleveland!”

 

[Della]

I don’t think it’s my love for controversy, (though I am a bit of a troublemaker! ), it’s being bombarded w/a plethora of information,(we want information, information, information…who are you?!), and trying to process it all leads to being “sleepless in Cleveland!”

It’s like this (remember all analogies are imperfect so we can’t take this too far). You have a $100 bill you wish to use to pay for your groceries. What does the store clerk do? He holds it up to the light or does some other test to determine if it’s real or not. He does this because it’s more likely that a bill of that amount would be counterfited. The Catholic Church is the real $100 bill. Simply because counterfits exist doesn’t mean there is no such thing as a real $100 bill.

Or, say you set out on a cruise on a nice big cruise liner. A lot of other smaller boats cruise alongside, each claiming to be the one you should have taken instead of the one that actually can acommodate all the people it must carry. Are the smaller boats all cruise lingers just because they claim they are?

The Church has made the same claims for itself since 33 AD–that it was founded by Christ, which it was, that it is the voice of Christ in the world, which it is, that within it contains all we need to obtain our salvation, which is true.

I can be hard looking at the Church like one gem among many, but the Catholic Church is the gem that was cut by the Master not a knock-off or cubic zirconia. It’s real because Christ said so and no other reason.

 

[stewstew03]

That’s another thing, there are a myriad of things Catholics seem to think are a, if not thee, “Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit!”

I think you meant to say, “There are a myriad of things Protestants claim are ‘True’ but with no authority to do so.”

:bible1:

 

[Fragile]

the IC was not made dogma for nearly 2,000 years, that alone should give one pause for it’s authenticity.

 

[pablope]

the IC was not made dogma for nearly 2,000 years, that alone should give one pause for it’s authenticity.

whom would you believe…Fragile…

a church who proclaimed it, albeit in 1854…based on Tradition and what was believed bofore, with 2000 years of history behind it?

or someone who just makes a declaration saying it is not true because it was made dogma only in 1854? based on an understanding that developed in the last 200 or 300 yrs?

 

[PRmerger]

the IC was not made dogma for nearly 2,000 years, that alone should give one pause for it’s authenticity.

What interval of time is a valid interval for you, Fragile?

Would 300 years without something be made dogma mean that it’s acceptable? What about 500 years?

(For, of course, you know that the Trinity was not defined as dogma for 300 years. The 2 natures of Christ not for 500 years…)

 

[Fragile]

Hmm, 500 years seem acceptable!

Not just the duration of time, but the complete absence of it even being implicit in scripture, despite all the hoops Catholic apologists go through to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

You would think that Paul, who was bent on sound doctrine, would’ve mentioned something about this in his letters, but he doesn’t even make mention of her, let alone to bestow they kind of “veneration” that is so important among Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm, 500 years seem acceptable!

Why do you get to determine the acceptable interval? And you base it on what Bible verse?

Not just the duration of time, but the complete absence of it even being implicit in scripture, despite all the hoops Catholic apologists go through to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

No, not complete absence in Scripture.

Incidentally, what’s completely absent in Scripture is the command that all of our beliefs need to be found explicitly in Scripture. Now that’s completely absent!

You would think that Paul, who was bent on sound doctrine, would’ve mentioned something about this in his letters, but he doesn’t even make mention of her, let alone to bestow they kind of “veneration” that is so important among Catholics.

Do you believe Jesus was born of a virgin, Fragile?

Can you show me where Paul mentions that?

 

[Fragile]

That’s already spelled out in the Gospels, as well as prophisized in the OT.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s already spelled out in the Gospels, as well as prophisized in the OT.

Would you mind using the “quote” feature, Fragile, so that we can see to which posts you’re actually responding?

Now, regarding Paul not mentioning the virgin birth…we are agreed, yes? Paul mentions nothing about this.

And yet you seem to be positing that if Paul doesn’t mention something it ought not be believed?

Is that not your original premise?

 

[Fragile]

I’m not always going to use the quote feature, try to discern what I’m refering to by the context of my post…oops, sorry, better use the quote option in the future!

 

[Fragile]

Would you mind using the “quote” feature, Fragile, so that we can see to which posts you’re actually responding?

Now, regarding Paul not mentioning the virgin birth…we are agreed, yes? Paul mentions nothing about this.

And yet you seem to be positing that if Paul doesn’t mention something it ought not be believed?

Is that not your original premise?

Not alone and in a vacuum, the fact that this is nowhere in scripture, either explicit nor implicit should be enough to call into question this teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

Not alone and in a vacuum, the fact that this is nowhere in scripture, either explicit nor implicit should be enough to call into question this teaching.

Then we can agree to disregard your comment about Paul not mentioning the IC. Because to use that principle, we’d have to also throw out the virgin birth, yes?

As far as there being no implicit mention of the IC, I beg to differ.

II. Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

source: scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-II

 

[PRmerger]

Why do you get to determine the acceptable interval? And you base it on what Bible verse?

Could you please answer this, Fragile? Why is 500 years an acceptable interval to define dogma, but not 600 years?

Please cite your Scriptural references. Book, chapter and verse. Thanks.

 

[Fragile]

I’ll go over all that later, for now don’t you think some Catholics go overboard w/Mary, to the point where the lines between veneration and worship are so blurred that they become virtually indistinguishable, and perhaps that is way some Protestants have gone to the other extreme and fear showing her the honor due?

While I’m not aware of any processions held in honor of Luther or Calvin, some due seem to venerate them, and while their works are not held as scripture, they are often used as a means to interpret them…

 

[Fragile]

Could you please answer this, Fragile? Why is 500 years an acceptable interval to define dogma, but not 600 years?

Please cite your Scriptural references. Book, chapter and verse. Thanks.

That was a joke!