Immaculate conception

[Goya]

^^^as follow up, I volunteer some perspective (not authoratative; just my own):

Mary is the ‘New Eve’–and Eve was ‘immaculately conceived’.

Doesn’t it make sense that the Lord would chose to become incarnate, of a woman whom He conceived–immaculately?

Does it somehow make more sense, that God would become incarnate of someone NOT conceived, free from the stain of original sin???

God created Adam. God could have ‘created’ His Son–or just ‘poofed’ Him into existence (or if you prefer, ‘poofed’ Himself into the form of a man). Instead, He chose to become incarnate of a woman; He chose to have a mother; He chose His mother; in fact, He created His mother.

What sense does it make that He would choose or create, for His own mother–a woman who was anything less than immaculately conceived?

That’s how you defend the Immaculate Conception. It is perfectly consistent with Christian doctrine, from its very inception–and, in fact, signifcantly more consistent, and more grounded in reason, logic and common sense, and more plausible–than the alternative–which is, that:

God chose to be born of a woman who was stained by original sin.

 

[Goya]

Furthermore, although not ‘required’ to be believed, Our Lady appeared to St’s Catherine Laboure, and Burnadette of Lourdes–and introduced herself as “Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception”:

Catherine Labouré was born on May 2nd 1806 to the Labouré family living about 200 miles south of Paris. Catherine was the third youngest of ten children. When she was nine years old her mother died. Then she turned to Mary, her heavenly Mother, for consolation. One day she was seen standing on a chair embracing the family statue and saying, “From now on you will be my mother.” Some time afterwards her elder sister entered the Daughters of Charity. Catherine rose at 5am each day and walked two miles to the next village for daily morning Mass since there was no priest for their parish church. She prayed in their local church every evening.

***One night she dreamt she was in a church and a strange priest was saying Mass. Still in her dream after Mass she called to a sick person and the priest was in the house. He said, “It is good to look after the sick” ***and he also said that though she would go away from him then she would come back to him later because God had special plans for her. Sometime later Catherine visited a convent of the Daughters of Charity, the congregation her sister had entered. On the wall of the parlor she saw a picture and realized it was the priest in her dream, St Vincent de Paul, who founded the Daughters of Charity 200 years previously.

At the age of twenty-one she asked her father’s permission to enter the Daughters of Charity. He refused but relented a few years later and in January 1830 she joined the congregation. A few months after she entered she was moved to the congregation’s mother house in a street called rue du Bac in Paris to begin her training. At 11.30 pm on July18th, the eve of the feast of St. Vincent de Paul, she was wakened by a child of four or five whom she took to be her guardian angel and who led her to the convent chapel where Our Lady appeared to her at midnight. Our Lady sat on the priest’s chair for two hours and invited Catherine to kneel beside her. She gave Catherine a message for herself and all the world, “Come to the foot of this altar. There graces will be poured out for all who ask for them.” Our Lady told her God had a special mission for her but did not tell her what it was.

Later that year, on November 27th, she received a second apparition of Our Lady when she was praying in the convent chapel at 5.30 pm. Our Lady was standing on a globe with her foot crushing the head of a serpent and there were rays of light coming from gems on her fingers. Our Lady said, “Behold the symbol of graces that I will shower down on all who ask me for them.” An oval frame surrounded Our Lady and Catherine could read this prayer in gold lettering on the oval frame, “O Mary conceived without sin pray for us who have recourse to thee.” Those of you who wear the miraculous medal know that this is the image on the front of the medal. The frame turned and Catherine could see a cross with a large “M” representing Mary beneath it. Beneath the cross were two hearts, one surrounded with thorns which Catherine understood to represent Jesus, and the other heart was pierced by a sword which Catherine took to represent Mary recalling the words of Simeon in the Temple to Mary that a sword of sorrow would pierce her soul (Luke 2:35). Those of you who wear the miraculous medal know that this is the image on the rear of the medal. Catherine was told to have a medal struck according to this model. Our Lady said that those who wear the medal properly blessed and repeat the prayer, “O Mary conceived without sin pray for us who have recourse to thee” will have great graces. Following Our Lady’s request, Catherine told no one but her spiritual director about these apparitions. He went to the archbishop of Paris who allowed the medal to be struck. Originally it was known as the medal of the Immaculate Conception but so many cures and miracles were attributed to it that it was called the Miraculous Medal.

…

At the time Our Lady appeared to Catherine in 1830, the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, although widely believed, was not a dogma required to be believed. Pope Pius IX is thought to have been influenced by the apparitions to Catherine in the rue du Bac when he decided to consult with the Church if the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady should be declared a dogma. He received overwhelming support and on December 8th 1854 declared Our Lady to have been free of sin from the moment of her conception. ***Four years later in 1858 Our Lady appeared to Bernadette at Lourdes and when asked who she was she replied, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”

So the apparitions in the rue du Bac in 1830 and the Miraculous Medal prepared for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception to be proclaimed in 1854 and the apparition at Lourdes in 1858 confirmed it***.

In 1933 as part of the canonization process St. Catherine Labouré’s body was exhumed and found to be in perfect preservation and was removed to the convent in the rue du Bac where it may now be seen behind glass in the spot where she received the request from Our Lady for the medal. In 1947 Pope Pius XII declared her to be Saint Catherine Labouré and called her the ‘saint of silence.’

Every day we have to overcome temptation and sin. We ask Mary immaculate to help us overcome all temptation and sin in our lives. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

…

frtommylane.com/homilies/years_abc/immaculate_conception2.htm

 

[Goya]

It’s just one of the least defensible doctines. How do we explain it to solo scriptura Protestants.

FWIW: I’m married to a ‘sola scriptura’ protestant–Evangelical. I have explained Marian doctrine to her hundreds of times; she doesn’t want to hear it. So be it. I don’t have to prove my Faith to her (and she can’t prove her sola scriptura faith to me). But I enjoy explaining Marian doctirne, and Catholic Faith to her, as I simply enjoy discussing and talking about the Faith. I even enjoy my Faith being challenged.

You should always be preprepared to explain what you believe in, and why.

My advice: do not shy away from Mary, and all that she entails; rather embrace her/it.

Do not be afriad.

As the Angel said to St. Joseph: “Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife”, so to we musn’t be afraid to take Mary as our Mother (as Jesus bequeathed her to us, at the foot of the cross)–and to stand up for her, and her properly exalted place within Catholic Faith.

IMO, there is no greater, nor more rewarding Marian devotion, than the recognition, observance, and in fact, celebration, of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The recognition of the IC is the greatest honor the Church has bestowed upon Mary (at least since proclaiming her Theotokos), and that Honor goes to Chirst himself. So if you need the Christological tie it, or justification, well here it is–in the simplest way I can put it:

YOU HONOR CHRIST, BY HONORING HIS MOTHER.

 

[Goya]

Mary’s Immaculate Conception

Introduction

"Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of
grace’ through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what
the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in
1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception,
by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits
of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of
original sin.1

Although the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not declared until 1845,
belief in Mary’s immaculate conception goes back to the earliest days of
Christianity.2 However,*** the Patristic support of this doctrine will be ignored
to focus on it’s biblical foundation***.

Sacred Scripture

The angel Gabriel addresses Mary in a most extraordinary manner using the title
“full of grace” which highlights the innermost state of her soul rather than using her
given name. The use of this title is notable because it goes to the heart of Mary’s
formation in preparation for her vocation as mother of God and her participation in
her son’s work of redemption.

The Greek word used, kecharitomene, means “graced,” “endowed with grace,” or
“highest grace.” It indicates a perfection of grace.3 The Greek verb used by Luke,
charitoo, is rare. It is only used one other time in the New Testament (Eph 1:6). It
belongs to a class of verbs ending in “oo” that are causative, that is, they indicate an
action which effects something in the object.4 To understand how St. Luke uses this
verb it is necessary to explore Greek grammar.

The Greek language employs 9 distinct verb stems. These stems are important
because they express different modalities of a verb’s lexical meanings. Thus in the
active sense charitoo means “to enrich with grace.” In the passive sense it means “to
be enriched with grace.” However, in the perfect passive participle, as used in
Luke 1:28, it means “to be enriched with grace in a permanent way.” In addressing
Mary the angel Gabriel attests that she is endowed with grace of a permanent and
singular kind, a perfection of grace or perfect holiness. This implies that the
fullness of grace is both intensive and extensive:
2
intensive - in that Mary’s reception of grace was as complete as possible
extensive - in that it was applied to the whole of Mary’s life, from the very
moment of her conception5

In sharp contrast with Luke’s use of charitoo as a perfect passive participle, St. Paul
uses the same verb in Ephesians 1:6. However, the meaning is significantly different
because the active indicative [echaritosen] form is used. “To the praise of his
glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved” (Eph 1:6). The
meaning here is “he graced,” or “he bestowed grace.” It expresses a momentary
action which does not show perfection with a permanent result as does the perfect
passive participle used in Luke 1:28.6

A comparison with another New Testament use of the past perfect tense will add
clarity to the use in Luke 1:28. In John 19:30 Jesus proclaims: “It is finished.” The
meaning is clear. The work of redemption is complete both intensively and
extensively. In other words, it is perfectly completed.

Martin Luther finds no difficulty in defending Mary’s complete sinlessness based on
Luke 1:28. "She [Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin…
Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be harmful to her"
Additional biblical support for Mary’s Immaculate Conception is discovered in the
***Bible’s exposition of Mary as the true Ark of the Covenant.***8

God demanded that only the finest materials and the purest gold be used in the construction of the
Ark (Ex 25:10-22). Similarly, the Holy Spirit used only the purest material to
tabernacle the Divine Son. For in Mary “the Word became flesh and dwelt [literally
“tabernacled” or “pitched his tent”] among us” (Jn 1:14).

In her role as the New Eve, “the woman” of Genesis 3:15,9 it is clear that Mary’s
victory in crushing Satan’s head is complete through the infinite merits of her Divine
Son. That would not be the case if for one moment Mary was under Satan’s power
through sin. For all eternity Satan could brag, “At least for that moment I possessed
your mother.” In addition had Mary been conceived in Original Sin, God would have
done something less for the Second Eve, the favorite daughter of the Father, the
spouse of the Holy Spirit and the Mother of Jesus Christ, than he did for the first Eve.

…

The reality is that there is no biblical basis for rejecting Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but there is compelling evidence to support it.

scborromeo.org/papers/immacula.pdf

 

[TimothyH]

^^^as follow up, I volunteer some perspective (not authoratative; just my own):

Mary is the ‘New Eve’–and Eve was ‘immaculately conceived’.

Doesn’t it make sense that the Lord would chose to become incarnate, of a woman whom He conceived–immaculately?

Does it somehow make more sense, that God would become incarnate of someone NOT conceived, free from the stain of original sin???

God created Adam. God could have ‘created’ His Son–or just ‘poofed’ Him into existence (or if you prefer, ‘poofed’ Himself into the form of a man). Instead, He chose to become incarnate of a woman; He chose to have a mother; He chose His mother; in fact, He created His mother.

What sense does it make that He would choose or create, for His own mother–a woman who was anything less than immaculately conceived?

That’s how you defend the Immaculate Conception. It is perfectly consistent with Christian doctrine, from its very inception–and, in fact, signifcantly more consistent, and more grounded in reason, logic and common sense, and more plausible–than the alternative–which is, that:

God chose to be born of a woman who was stained by original sin.

Red is mine…

Bingo!

-Tim-

 

[Theophorus]

That is what I have also read: that early on, it was the problem of reconciling the necessity of all for a savior in one who is free from all sin (original and personal); that it was that dilemma which kept the teaching from being proclaimed earlier as dogma. Thank you Dun Scotus.

St. Thomas believed in Mary’s perpetual sinlessness, he simply couldn’t square the metaphysics of an immaculate conception with the scientific information available to him in his day. This was the problem of most philosopher-theologians of the day. Duns Scotus resorted to a form of philosophical voluntarism which basically said God could do anything he wanted to because he was God, therefore BAM Immaculate conception.

As far as I understand Scotus, God could even act against his own nature if he felt like it, which throws up all sorts of problems for God as perfect being.

Ironically modern biology givens a stronger case for the possibility of an Immaculate Conception that either St. Thomas or Duns Scotus could have dreamed of.

 

[Nita]

St. Thomas believed in Mary’s perpetual sinlessness, he simply couldn’t square the metaphysics of an immaculate conception with the scientific information available to him in his day. …

Could you please provide the “metaphysics” position which you say Aquinas held, that couldn’t square with an immaculate conception for the Mother of God. Also, please provide a link, or at least a reference to the work, in which he expressed this position.

Thanks.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Yeah them too Seriously though how do we defend it.

Well, for starters you reject solo scriptura and uphold the papacy and the infallibility of the Catholic Church. If you win these arguments, you’re home free.

 

[Trebor135]

^^^as follow up, I volunteer some perspective (not authoratative; just my own):

Mary is the ‘New Eve’–and Eve was ‘immaculately conceived’.

Doesn’t it make sense that the Lord would chose to become incarnate, of a woman whom He conceived–immaculately?

Does it somehow make more sense, that God would become incarnate of someone NOT conceived, free from the stain of original sin???

God created Adam. God could have ‘created’ His Son–or just ‘poofed’ Him into existence (or if you prefer, ‘poofed’ Himself into the form of a man). Instead, He chose to become incarnate of a woman; He chose to have a mother; He chose His mother; in fact, He created His mother.

What sense does it make that He would choose or create, for His own mother–a woman who was anything less than immaculately conceived?

That’s how you defend the Immaculate Conception. It is perfectly consistent with Christian doctrine, from its very inception–and, in fact, signifcantly more consistent, and more grounded in reason, logic and common sense, and more plausible–than the alternative–which is, that:

God chose to be born of a woman who was stained by original sin.

We know things by divine revelation. Catholics believe in Tradition as an essential source of doctrine. So, we shouldn’t promulgate and dogmatize the immaculate conception simply because it “makes sense”.

 

[Robyn_p]

I must admit I struggle with this one. If Mary had to be sinless then why not her parents before her? Could Christ really not be born of a normal human womb? I thought that was kind of the point, that He came down to be one of us

He is still one of us. Is sin what makes someone fully human? No, sin actually makes us less human. Sin’s a defect, like rust on a car. We get so absorbed with the rust, that now we identify the car with the rust! But rust doesn’t make a car what it is. So Christ was actually born of a normal human being! She was just without defect, and I don’t see how that is a bad thing.

But one thing to note, Mary did not HAVE to be conceived without sin to be Jesus’ mother. I know sometimes that’s what people will say, but that’s actually not what the Church teaches. God didn’t even HAVE to become man or be born of a virgin either. He can do what He wills. But it is fitting, from everything we know about God, that He would preserve his own mother from the stain of sin. Not because it would be impossible without it, but because He’s God and He deserves the best. If the Ark, which held only a type of Christ, was made from the purest materials, why would that not apply to Mary, who bore the real deal!

Fulton Sheens book, The Worlds First Love, has one of the best explanations of this I think. I highly recommend it if you want to go deeper. And he explains this way better than I ever could.

 

[Arthropod]

The reality is that there is no biblical basis for rejecting Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but there is compelling evidence to support it.

Genesis 6:5
The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 8:21
The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Job 9:2 (Job speaking)
"Indeed, I know that this is true. But how can a mortal be righteous before God?

(Please read this one in the light of Job 42:7, where God says Job has “spoken of God what is right”.)

Job 15:14 (Eliphaz the Temmanite speaking)
"What is man, that he could be pure, or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?

Job 25:4 (Bildad the Shuhite speaking)
How then can a man be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure?

1 Kings 8:46 and 2 Chronicles 6:36 (This is Solomon speaking at the consecration of the temple):
"When they sin against you–for there is no one who does not sin–and you become angry with them and give them over to the enemy, who takes them captive to his own land, far away or near;

Psalm 14:3
All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalm 53:3
Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalm 58:3
Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Psalm 130:3
If you, O LORD, kept a record of sins, O Lord, who could stand?

Psalm 143:2
Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you.

Proverbs 20:9
Who can say, “I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin”?

Ecclesiasties 7:20
There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.

Romans 3:10-12
As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

1 John 1:8
If we claim to be without sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us.

James 3:2
We all stumble in many ways. . . .

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Genesis 6:5
The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 8:21
The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

Job 9:2 (Job speaking)
"Indeed, I know that this is true. But how can a mortal be righteous before God?

(Please read this one in the light of Job 42:7, where God says Job has “spoken of God what is right”.)

Job 15:14 (Eliphaz the Temmanite speaking)
"What is man, that he could be pure, or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?

Job 25:4 (Bildad the Shuhite speaking)
How then can a man be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure?

1 Kings 8:46 and 2 Chronicles 6:36 (This is Solomon speaking at the consecration of the temple):
"When they sin against you–for there is no one who does not sin–and you become angry with them and give them over to the enemy, who takes them captive to his own land, far away or near;

Psalm 14:3
All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalm 53:3
Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalm 58:3
Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Psalm 130:3
If you, O LORD, kept a record of sins, O Lord, who could stand?

Psalm 143:2
Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you.

Proverbs 20:9
Who can say, “I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin”?

Ecclesiasties 7:20
There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.

Romans 3:10-12
As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

1 John 1:8
If we claim to be without sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us.

James 3:2
We all stumble in many ways. . . .

Luke 1: 5-6
In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

I thought no one could be righteous before God? But it says it right in Scripture… Hmmm… Contradiction? Maybe the councils (handed down by the Apostles in Acts 15) that discerned the Immaculate Conception were guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ? Nah, each man is definitely his own magisterium and vicar of Christ and fully able to interpret Scripture with 100% accuracy regardless of the many different contradictory conclusions they come to. Perfect sense. PERFECT.

 

[Arthropod]

Luke 1: 5-6
In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

I thought no one could be righteous before God? But it says it right in Scripture… Hmmm… Contradiction? Maybe the councils (handed down by the Apostles in Acts 15) that discerned the Immaculate Conception were guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ? Nah, each man is definitely his own magisterium and vicar of Christ and fully able to interpret Scripture with 100% accuracy regardless of the many different contradictory conclusions they come to. Perfect sense. PERFECT.

tektonics.org/tulip/tulip.html
tektonics.org:

Critics are fond of quoting a verse shortly after this one, Genesis 6:9, which speaks of Noah being “perfect” and asking if this does not contradict statements elsewhere that all men sin. They are of course wrong in their understanding of this verse, as we have shown elsewhere, and in their understanding of similar verses like Job 1:1 and Luke 1:6 (see the same link) that describe various men as perfect, righteous, or blameless. I have answered these critics by noting that typically ANE literature used exaggeration for effect. Job, Noah and others were comparatively righteous, and are described as completely so for comparative effect.

I can honestly interpret Genesis 6:5 under no different principles. This is undoubtedly exaggeration for effect, for of course one cannot literally have thoughts of the heart that are continually evil (for we must all sleep sometime) . . . .

Of course, I suppose you will play the certainty card on me again, and call on me to shut off my mind and blindly eat whatever the RCC teaches.

I believe the bible. I believe the bible is the sole and final authority. What does it say about using my own head?

Christ rebuked the pharisees on numerous occasions for NOT reading the scriptures and using their own heads (Have you *never **read *. . . . ???)

Luke praised the bereans for reading the scriptures, listening to what Paul said, comparing the two and using their own heads

I believe it is completely biblical for me to read the bible and use my own head just a little bit

 

[JamesCaruso]

If I am not mistaken, it was the Franciscans, not the much touted intellectuals of the Church, the Jesuits, who came up with the explanation of the Immaculate Conception, that of God borrowing on the foreknown merits of the death of His Only Begotten on the Cross of Calvary, and applying those merits in the immaculate conception of a woman who would bring the Only Begotten of the Father into the world. So by the merits of Christ’s death, which had not yet taken place, was Mary immaculately conceived in the womb of Saint Anne!

 

[Goya]

We know things by divine revelation. Catholics believe in Tradition as an essential source of doctrine. So, we shouldn’t promulgate and dogmatize the immaculate conception simply because it “makes sense”.

Certainly the Church did not promulgate it ‘simply because it makes sense’.

…and nor did I. I volunteered that, as my opinion–gravy–the steak and potatoes were served up in the post before that–statements by Church Fathers (ok, the potatoes, anyway–the steak, would be the Proclamation by Pope Pius IX, which someone else posted before me).

Bon apetite!

 

[Goya]

Genesis 6:5
The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

Genesis 8:21
…

Ecclesiasties 7:20
There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.

Romans 3:10-12
As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

1 John 1:8
If we claim to be without sin, we decieve ourselves and the truth is not in us.

James 3:2
We all stumble in many ways. . . .

…and yet, for all that–MAN constructed THE ARK, in which THE WORD OF GOD (Tablets with the Ten Commandments) was preserved–albeit according to God’s express instructions.

Immaculate, on the inside–yet made by MAN.

Is it your interpretation therefore, that God could not make for Himself, a perfect Ark, within which to incarnate His Son–The Word’ (John 1:!)?

You dare pretend to impose restrictions upon the omnipotent Father?

How arrogant.

What’s more, is it your interpretation and contention, that the parallels between the Ark of the Covenenant, and Mary/Elizebeth, are just…what…convenient, meaningless accidents?

The Holy Spirit just…put that stuff in there, as a ‘red herring’, or such???

 

[JamesCaruso]

tektonics.org/tulip/tulip.html

Of course, I suppose you will play the certainty card on me again, and call on me to shut off my mind and blindly eat whatever the RCC teaches.

I believe the bible. I believe the bible is the sole and final authority. What does it say about using my own head?

Christ rebuked the pharisees on numerous occasions for NOT reading the scriptures and using their own heads (Have you *never **read *. . . . ???)

Luke praised the bereans for reading the scriptures, listening to what Paul said, comparing the two and using their own heads

I believe it is completely biblical for me to read the bible and use my own head just a little bit

Then use your head and accept the authority of the Catholic Church instituted by Christ as plainly evidenced by Holy Scripture. Sometimes, my separated brothers in Christ are hard to endure. Once you departed from the path, all your reasoning and interpretation of Holy Scriptures became muddled and subject to error by your vested interest in justifying your separation. Come back to the Church. Then you will understand fully, and not with any need for bias.

 

[Fra_Angelo]

If the history of the teaching and the Scripture passages aren’t sufficient, then there is one
Scripture passage that should settle it, at least for believing Catholics:
“16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,…”

Our Lord would never lie, and neither would He allow a lie to be bound in heaven. How can one doubt the truth of His words or that He lacks the power to carry out what He promises.

That’s nice answer. I liked it.

 

[thengoc701]

truyen nguoi lon
truyen tranh sex
phim sex online

 

[FireFromHeaven]

tektonics.org/tulip/tulip.html

Of course, I suppose you will play the certainty card on me again, and call on me to shut off my mind and blindly eat whatever the RCC teaches.

I believe the bible. I believe the bible is the sole and final authority. What does it say about using my own head?

Christ rebuked the pharisees on numerous occasions for NOT reading the scriptures and using their own heads (Have you *never **read *. . . . ???)

Luke praised the bereans for reading the scriptures, listening to what Paul said, comparing the two and using their own heads

I believe it is completely biblical for me to read the bible and use my own head just a little bit

But as Catholics we are called to read scripture. Like paul said we check our beliefs in the scriptures and in the oral teachings and scriptural tradition of his church.**