Immaculate conception

[dshix]

@thengoc:

Spam reported.

 

[Fra_Angelo]

In the third period, “For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure because she incurred the stain neither of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin.”[Expositio super salutatione angelica][/INDENT]

I disagree with Lagrange. In his latter work, the work he wrote when he was in his summit or golden period, the Compendium of Theology too, he clearly denies it. Some of the latin professors told me there can be a different understanding for the text of the Expositio angelica. Anyway I am not telling that he never believed in IC of Mary. But in all his matured works he denies it for the sake of refuting the heresies. I find it difficult too to believe that he had believed in IC, becoz if he had believed he would not have denied it but would have been seeking for the explanations. Anyway one thing is clear that he did believe or deny the dogma of IC for it was not a dogma then.

 

[Goya]

More scriptural grounding for the IC:

***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.***

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-II

 

[Arthropod]

…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???

1. Who says the ark of the covenant was immaculate? I haven’t heard that before.
2. What? You dare to reject the clear evidence of the written word of God in favour of your own ingenious reasonings?

How arrogant

1. I don’t recall saying God couldn’t. I thought I was saying he DIDN"T, based on scripture. They are not the same thing.

Tertullian:

But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it. God could, if He had liked, have furnished man with wings to fly with, just as He gave wings to kites. We must not, however, run to the conclusion that He did this because He was able to do it. He might also have extinguished Praxeas and all other heretics at once; it does not follow, however, that He did, simply because He was able. . . . . . . . . For with God, to be willing is to be able, and to be unwilling is to be unable; . . . . .

 

[Theophorus]

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.

Of course, no bother. As I mentioned in an earlier post on this tread, “St. Thomas Aquinas and many others did not believe the Immaculate Conception would have been possible as they held to an Aristotelian biological model which held that human ensoulment didn’t occur until about 40 days or so after conception(the foetus would first have a vegetative soul, then a sensitive soul, and once the foetus finally began to resemble a human person God would finally create a rational human soul) making an Immaculate Conception impossible. However St.Thomas did believe in Mary’s perpetual sinlessness.”

Now holding to this aristotelian model of human biology, St. thomas writes on this in the third part of the Summa Theologiae, question 27 newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm. While the whole question is interesting, article 2 “Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?” Is the one I refer to. In the Respondeo he writes

I answer that, The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a “perfect cleansing,” as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.

Secondly, because, since the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, the offspring conceived is not liable to sin. And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Matthew 1:21): “He shall save His people from their sins.” But this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the “Saviour of all men,” as He is called (1 Timothy 4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.

As to the aristotelian biology component, which held this gradual ensoulment after biological conception, it is covered by aristotle In On the Generation of Animals(can’t remember where exactly, sorry), and by St. Thomas’ work De Potentia, dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia.htm#3:1 question 3, particularly articles 9-12 and especially the Reply to the Ninth Objection in article 9,. this IMO, is the best Thomistic work on that but it is far to long to post here and probably belongs in the philosophy section anyway! It is worth noting that if St. Thomas had modern biology he would have had no problem with the metaphysics of an immaculate conception. Just another case of revelation via Tradition being spot on.

I hope this helps

 

[Arthropod]

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.

Never! I will never turn to the dark side!

Seriously though, the gospel in the bible is different to the Roman gospel. I couldn’t take the Roman gospel and use my head at the same time.

And do you mean to claim that your own reasoning and interpretation of holy scriptures is not subject to error?

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Never! I will never turn to the dark side!

Seriously though, the gospel in the bible is different to the Roman gospel. I couldn’t take the Roman gospel and use my head at the same time.

And do you mean to claim that your own reasoning and interpretation of holy scriptures is not subject to error?

Examples of where you can’t use the gospel and your reasoning?

 

[Arthropod]

Examples of where you can’t use the gospel and your reasoning?

This thread is really about the immaculate conception, not justification. Here are my favourite passages, but please be advised that I will not respond to further critique of these passages in this thread, as I don’t want to drag it completely off topic.

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a]

4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Never! I will never turn to the dark side!

Seriously though, the gospel in the bible is different to the Roman gospel. I couldn’t take the Roman gospel and use my head at the same time.

And do you mean to claim that your own reasoning and interpretation of holy scriptures is not subject to error?

I mean to claim that the Catholic Church, the same one your ancestors in Christ believed in for the first 1,500 years of Christianity, the same one that made the selection of the books and the translations of those books that would comprise the Bible and did so under its infallible authority so given it by the grace of God in Jesus Christ, is that same one which you reject, and have even decided against the translations and interpretations that your ancestors in Christ gave it for all those 1,500 years and decided that in some things it was infallible, namely in selecting the majority of the books, but was not infallible in other things, namely the doctrines your ancestors at the Protestant Reformation decided to ignore, including some of the books of the Bible, and then decided also that the books that the Catholic Church did select on the basis of a certain specific translations, were authentic and guided by the Holy Spirit, but not in the translations by virtue of which they were selected, and chose to retranslated those books to get a better rendering, that is, to eliminate any wordings that might cause them problems in their newly formulated doctrines of Christ, which differed substantially with those believed by their ancestors for all those 1,500 years.

I claim that the reasoning and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures done by the Catholic Church is not subject to error in matters pertaining to faith and morals under the stamp of infallibility granted it by Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the same infallibility it employed to select the books of the Bible that you call your Bible and to approve them as inspired of the Holy Spirit. I claim that your reasoning and interpretation and your church’s reasoning and interpretation, as well as my own, is subject to error, for neither of us, nor your church, has been granted Jesus’ authority to make decisions on matters of the faith. You may get 90% of it right, you may even get 95% or more of it right, but when you refute the clear authority vested by Christ in His Church, you miss the whole shebang. You have no clue what is infallible and what is not infallible since you have rejected the power vested in the Church. Now your doctrines vary from protesting church to protesting church to fit whatever you want to keep and whatever you want to reject. It seems curious that when given the opportunity to invoke the Spirit of God to rightly shape and interpret your doctrines how many and varied they are. There is a spirit of disunity at work here and it is not the Holy Spirit.

In all sincerity and without malice,

+Deus tecum,

Jim

 

[Darryl_B]

Sorry I know the basis behind the immaculate conception and both historically and scripturally there is a remarkably good case as has been well presented. But I would like to supply a slightly different angle.

The scene, standing before the throne of Grace, give an account, Jesus Christ leans forward and says

“Now Protestant, what did you say about my Mother Mary?”.

Although I guess it is no different than Jesus Christ leaning forward and saying

“Now Protestant, what did you say about my Church?”.

Although I guess it is no different than Jesus Christ leaning forward and saying

“Now Protestant, tell me about this protest in the context of the One Body and the Communion of Saints.”

 

[PeaceInChrist]

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

2 Peter 1: 16-21

16For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,i with whom I am well pleased,” 18we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12: 24-26

But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

Romans 16: 17

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

It’s almost like God is TRYING really hard to tell us that we are to remain united in faith and not to be schismatic. And I find that I use my brain far more than ever before when I am engaged in the full and rich faith that has handed down the Gospel in its entirety, with such wonderful experience and insight and the assisstance of the many holy men and women that have come before. I am so blessed to stand on the shoulders of the friends of the Lord and His Church, that I may see Him so clearly!

And no matter what you say, you are interpreting Scripture by what someone else told you (that website that you posted, for instance), or you yourself are the interpreter of what you are reading. The Bible can’t literally speak to you or instruct you. If it could, there would be one Christianity, and not so many divisions within. You do exactly as you accuse me of doing: you listen to the interpretations of others and come to a conclusion on theological matters, only you do not do it on an ecumenical, Apostolic scale, but an individual scale.

I hope whatever hatred you have for the true Church is removed by Our Lord, and that you come to know the full, historic Gospel preached by the Church, protected by the Spirit, since Pentacost.

 

[Fra_Angelo]

I mean to claim that the Catholic Church, the same one your ancestors in Christ believed in for the first 1,500 years of Christianity, the same one that made the selection of the books and the translations of those books that would comprise the Bible and did so under its infallible authority so given it by the grace of God in Jesus Christ, is that same one which you reject, and have even decided against the translations and interpretations that your ancestors in Christ gave it for all those 1,500 years and decided that in some things it was infallible, namely in selecting the majority of the books, but was not infallible in other things, namely the doctrines your ancestors at the Protestant Reformation decided to ignore, including some of the books of the Bible, and then decided also that the books that the Catholic Church did select on the basis of a certain specific translations, were authentic and guided by the Holy Spirit, but not in the translations by virtue of which they were selected, and chose to retranslated those books to get a better rendering, that is, to eliminate any wordings that might cause them problems in their newly formulated doctrines of Christ, which differed substantially with those believed by their ancestors for all those 1,500 years.

I claim that the reasoning and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures done by the Catholic Church is not subject to error in matters pertaining to faith and morals under the stamp of infallibility granted it by Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the same infallibility it employed to select the books of the Bible that you call your Bible and to approve them as inspired of the Holy Spirit. I claim that your reasoning and interpretation and your church’s reasoning and interpretation, as well as my own, is subject to error, for neither of us, nor your church, has been granted Jesus’ authority to make decisions on matters of the faith. You may get 90% of it right, you may even get 95% or more of it right, but when you refute the clear authority vested by Christ in His Church, you miss the whole shebang. You have no clue what is infallible and what is not infallible since you have rejected the power vested in the Church. Now your doctrines vary from protesting church to protesting church to fit whatever you want to keep and whatever you want to reject. It seems curious that when given the opportunity to invoke the Spirit of God to rightly shape and interpret your doctrines how many and varied they are. There is a spirit of disunity at work here and it is not the Holy Spirit.

In all sincerity and without malice,

+Deus tecum,

Jim

Beautiful!

 

[Goya]

Arthropod;10630456]

1. Who says the ark of the covenant was immaculate? I haven’t heard that before.

God struck down Uzzah for merely touching the Ark–IN ORDER TO STABALIZE IT, AND KEEP IT FROM FALLING! I’d say the Lord took that Ark pretty darn seriously.

What’s more, he instructed the Levites to consturct it out of the finest wood, and cover it in gold–and to provide 2 poles (not part of the Ark–rather, they slid into slots or such, which were affixed to the Ark) with which to carry the Ark. What’s more, in 1 Chronicles 15, we see that the priests had to SANCTIFY THEMSELVES, in order to touch the poles–NOT EVEN THE ARK ITSELF!!!

All that, in order to carry the Word of God as afixed to stone tablets–somehow you find it consistent with scritpure, that the Word of God INCARNATE, should be afforded any less dignity?

I thought y’all protestant types revered the Word of God?

1. What? You dare to reject the clear evidence of the written word of God in favour of your own ingenious reasonings?

How arrogant

What evidence? I’m still waiting for it…

1. I don’t recall saying God couldn’t. I thought I was saying he DIDN"T, based on scripture. They are not the same thing.

I see. I thought that by your scriptural citations you were (name removed by moderator)lying that it could not be so, since Mary was implicitly included in the references to all men. Should be noted however, that your citations made no exceptions for Jesus either.

btw: props for the Tertullian quote; however, it simply doesn’t apply here. God provided his own precedent, with the Ark of the Covenant.

…on that note…I couldn’t help but notice that you did not address my question–

Did the Holy Spirit include the parallels between Mary (& Elizebeth) to the Ark of the Covenant (& David), by accident? As a 'red herring? Just to mess with us? Some other reason?

 

[Goya]

^^^follow up:

Patrick Madrid states it much better than I—here is an excerpt, with a link:

**Ark of the new covenant **

By Patrick Madrid

…

Mary’s Immaculate Conception is foreshadowed in Genesis 1, where God creates the universe in an immaculate state, free from any blemish or stain of sin or imperfection. This is borne out by the repeated mention in Genesis 1 of God beholding his creations and saying they were “very good.” Out of pristine matter the Lord created Adam, the first immaculately created human being, forming him from the “womb” of the Earth.*** The immaculate elements from which the first Adam received his substance foreshadowed the immaculate mother from whom the second Adam (Romans 5:14) took his human substance***.

The second foreshadowing of Mary is Eve, the physical mother of our race, just as Mary is our spiritual mother through our membership in the Body of Christ (Rev. 12:17). What Eve spoiled through disobedience and lack of faith (Genesis 3), Mary set aright through faith and obedience (Luke 1:38).

We see a crucial statement in Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike at his heel.” This passage is especially significant in that it refers to the “seed of the woman,” a singular usage. The Bible, following normal biology, otherwise only refers to the seed of the man, the seed of the father, but never to the seed of the woman. Who is the woman mentioned here? The only possibility is Mary, the only woman to give birth to a child without the aid of a human father, a fact prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.

If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable. Why is that? The passage points to Mary’s Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Corinthians 6:14). This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of Satan in Genesis 3.

The third and most compelling type of Mary’s Immaculate Conception is the ark of the covenant. In Exodus 20 Moses is given the Ten Commandments. In chapters 25 through 30 the Lord gives Moses a detailed plan for the construction of the ark, the special container which would carry the Commandments. The surprising thing is that five chapters later, staring in chapter 35 and continuing to chapter 40, Moses repeats word for word each of the details of the ark’s construction.

Why? It was a way of emphasizing how crucial it was for the Lord’s exact specifications to be met (Ex. 25:9, 39:42-43). God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the written Word of God. How much more so would God want Mary, the ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.

When the ark was completed, "the cloud covered the meeting tent and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling. Moses could not enter the meeting tent, because the cloud settled down upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling" (Ex. 40:34-38). Compare this with the words of Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:35.

There’s another striking foreshadowing of Mary as the new ark of the covenant in 2 Samuel 6. The Israelites had lost the ark in a battle with their enemies, the Philistines, and had recently recaptured it. King David sees the ark being brought to him and, in his joy and awe, says "Who am I that the ark of the Lord should come to me?" (1 Sam. 6:9).

***Compare this with Elizabeth’s nearly identical words in Luke 1:43. Just as David leapt for joy before the ark when it was brought into Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14-16), so John the Baptist leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary, the ark of the new covenant, came into her presence (Luke 1:44). John’s leap was for precisely the same reason as David’s–not primarily because of the ark itself, but because of what the ark contained, the Word of God. ***

Another parallel may be found in 2 Samuel 6:10-12 where we read that David ordered the ark diverted up into the hill country of Judea to remain with the household of Obededom for three months. This parallels the three-month visit Mary made at Elizabeth’s home in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39-45, 65). While the ark remained with Obededom it “blessed his household.” This is an Old Testament way of saying the fertility of women, crops, and livestock was increased. Notice that God worked this same miracle for Elizabeth and Zachariah in their old age as a prelude to the greater miracle he would work in Mary.

The Mary/ark imagery appears again in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1-17, where she is called the mother of all “those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus” (verse 17). The ark symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between the Old Testament’s description of the ark and the New Testament’s discussion of Mary’s role.

…

archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp

 

[Arthropod]

I mean to claim that the Catholic Church, the same one your ancestors in Christ believed in for the first 1,500 years of Christianity,

Agreed. It is a pity the (so called) Catholic Church today has departed from its original beliefs that were held for 1500 years.

the same one that made the selection of the books and the translations of those books that would comprise the Bible and did so under its infallible authority so given it by the grace of God in Jesus Christ, is that same one which you reject,

No, I reject the Roman catholic church, which is a heretical schismatic organisation!

and have even decided against the translations and interpretations that your ancestors in Christ gave it for all those 1,500 years and decided that in some things it was infallible, namely in selecting the majority of the books, but was not infallible in other things, namely the doctrines your ancestors at the Protestant Reformation decided to ignore, including some of the books of the Bible,

OK, If the apocrypha was infallibly included in the canon before Trent, why is it that several fathers and Cardinal Cajetan (who was Rome’s trusted emissary sent to debate Luther) deny this?

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

and then decided also that the books that the Catholic Church did select on the basis of a certain specific translations,

You serious? I thought the canon was decided on the basis of Inspiration by God, not its translation

were authentic and guided by the Holy Spirit, but not in the translations by virtue of which they were selected, and chose to retranslated those books to get a better rendering, that is, to eliminate any wordings that might cause them problems in their newly formulated doctrines of Christ, which differed substantially with those believed by their ancestors for all those 1,500 years.

. . . and a few errors in the translations . .

I claim that the reasoning and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures done by the Catholic Church is not subject to error in matters pertaining to faith and morals under the stamp of infallibility granted it by Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the same infallibility it employed to select the books of the Bible that you call your Bible and to approve them as inspired of the Holy Spirit. I claim that your reasoning and interpretation and your church’s reasoning and interpretation, as well as my own, is subject to error, for neither of us, nor your church, has been granted Jesus’ authority to make decisions on matters of the faith. You may get 90% of it right, you may even get 95% or more of it right, but when you refute the clear authority vested by Christ in His Church, you miss the whole shebang. You have no clue what is infallible and what is not infallible since you have rejected the power vested in the Church. Now your doctrines vary from protesting church to protesting church to fit whatever you want to keep and whatever you want to reject.

do you mean to claim that this is not true of your own church?

It seems curious that when given the opportunity to invoke the Spirit of God to rightly shape and interpret your doctrines how many and varied they are. There is a spirit of disunity at work here and it is not the Holy Spirit.

Minor disunity over (mostly) nonessential issues is better than complete uniformity over a different gospel which is no gospel at all!

Even if I agree with you about this awesome authority supposedly granted to the church, which catholic church has this authority? Roman? Orthodox (no pope)? Old catholic (no infallible pope)? Gerry Matatics catholic (no recent infallible pope)? If you don’t get this right, you go to hell!

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal . . . . and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the Sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier.

]You are trying to make me believe the issue is real simple once I accept this authority. I find, once I dig down a bit further, that it becomes rediculously complex.

Help! I need an infallible authority to tell me who is the infallible authority! (Then I need a third infallible authority to tell me the second infallible authority is correct! Then I need a fourth . . . . . .)

 

[Arthropod]

2 Peter 1: 16-21

16For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,i with whom I am well pleased,” 18we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I notice the scripture does NOT say “The religious authorities are right, even when they are wrong”, which is what you would have me believe. I notice it only applies to prophesy. I notice it does not apply to inspired straightforward exposition of facts, which is what I base my faith on.

1 Corinthians 12: 24-26

But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

Romans 16: 17

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

It’s almost like God is TRYING really hard to tell us that we are to remain united in faith and not to be schismatic.

absolutely. Now go and read galatians, and see if Paul was trying to remain united in faith with those who preached a different gospel. Rome preaches a different gospel, so I feel justified in not remaining united in faith with it.

And I find that I use my brain far more than ever before when I am engaged in the full and rich faith that has handed down the Gospel in its entirety, with such wonderful experience and insight and the assisstance of the many holy men and women that have come before. I am so blessed to stand on the shoulders of the friends of the Lord and His Church, that I may see Him so clearly!

And no matter what you say, you are interpreting Scripture by what someone else told you (that website that you posted, for instance), or you yourself are the interpreter of what you are reading. The Bible can’t literally speak to you or instruct you.

Why not? I get instruction from other noninspired books on topics such as greek, justification, nutrition, biochemistry, so why not the bible???

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If it could, there would be one Christianity, and not so many divisions within.

OK. You are claiming the church of Rome does literally instruct and teach you? Like the bible doesn’t?
In that case, please prove there are no divisions in the church of Rome. Please prove there is no such person as Gerry Matatics (who says Vatican II was invalid), no such person as George Pell (who says Adam and Eve are mythical), no anyone else who doesn’t toe the party line on any issue.

You do exactly as you accuse me of doing: you listen to the interpretations of others and come to a conclusion on theological matters, only you do not do it on an ecumenical, Apostolic scale, but an individual scale.

Hmmmm so reading the writings of the apostles doesn’t count as an apostolic scale?

I hope whatever hatred you have for the true Church is removed by Our Lord, and that you come to know the full, historic Gospel preached by the Church, protected by the Spirit, since Pentacost.

If I hate what you call the true church, it is because it preaches a different gospel, which is no gospel at all!

 

[thenobes]

Help! I need an infallible authority to tell me who is the infallible authority! (Then I need a third infallible authority to tell me the second infallible authority is correct! Then I need a fourth . . . . . .)

No the Holy Spirit is sufficient.

He wants us to be led into truth.

Jesus gave us the framework as to how to resolve disagreements in to Church, establishing the truth of a matter of disagreement (remember in Matthew where He ends saying: “… and if he listens not to the Church, treat him as a heathen or publican.”

This framework only works with a visible church.

Protestants never could, and never will be able to claim, that they are the ones to comprise the visible Church. It is they who have to appeal to the existing Church.

As a practical matter a visible head of the church is necessary to make truth judgements for the Church when the Church is not physically able to be present at once to make the judgement of which Jesus speaks. Indeed to enable this, they were given the powers to bind and loose from the apostles.

peace
steve

 

[Arthropod]

Arthropod;10630456]

God struck down Uzzah for merely touching the Ark–IN ORDER TO STABALIZE IT, AND KEEP IT FROM FALLING! I’d say the Lord took that Ark pretty darn seriously.

What’s more, he instructed the Levites to consturct it out of the finest wood, and cover it in gold–and to provide 2 poles (not part of the Ark–rather, they slid into slots or such, which were affixed to the Ark) with which to carry the Ark. What’s more, in 1 Chronicles 15, we see that the priests had to SANCTIFY THEMSELVES, in order to touch the poles–NOT EVEN THE ARK ITSELF!!!

All that, in order to carry the Word of God as afixed to stone tablets–somehow you find it consistent with scritpure, that the Word of God INCARNATE, should be afforded any less dignity?

I thought y’all protestant types revered the Word of God?

By the same analogy then, surely anyone who touched Mary would have been struck dead

What evidence? I’m still waiting for it…

I see. I thought that by your scriptural citations you were (name removed by moderator)lying that it could not be so, since Mary was implicitly included in the references to all men. Should be noted however, that your citations made no exceptions for Jesus either.

btw: props for the Tertullian quote; however, it simply doesn’t apply here. God provided his own precedent, with the Ark of the Covenant.

…on that note…I couldn’t help but notice that you did not address my question–

Did the Holy Spirit include the parallels between Mary (& Elizebeth) to the Ark of the Covenant (& David), by accident? As a 'red herring? Just to mess with us? Some other reason?

To answer your question: THE HOLY SPIRIT NEVER CONTRADICTS ITSELF.

I already posted several pages of explicit quotes. All you have is implicit inferals and ingenious reasonings and dubious types.

Augustine also had some interesting thoughts on one of my quotes:

There is no one who does anything good, no, not even to the very last one. This expression, not even to the very last one, can either be understood as including that particular one, which would mean nobody at all, or it can be taken to mean “with the exception of one,” indicating the Lord Christ … This latter interpretation is the better one, because nobody is deemed to have done anything good right down to Christ, because nobody can unless Christ himself has shown how.

I thought y’all Roman types revered the fathers?

 

[Arthropod]

No the Holy Spirit is sufficient.

He wants us to be led into truth.

Jesus gave us the framework as to how to resolve disagreements in to Church, establishing the truth of a matter of disagreement (remember in Matthew where He ends saying: “… and if he listens not to the Church, treat him as a heathen or publican.”

This framework only works with a visible church.

Protestants never could, and never will be able to claim, that they are the ones to comprise the visible Church. It is they who have to appeal to the existing Church.

As a practical matter a visible head of the church is necessary to make truth judgements for the Church when the Church is not physically able to be present at once to make the judgement of which Jesus speaks. Indeed to enable this, they were given the powers to bind and loose from the apostles.

peace
steve

Well in that case, the Holy Spirit inspired a bible detailing the gospel. Your “visible head of the church” has repeatedly anathematised the gospel of the bible.

 

[Darryl_B]

By the same analogy then, surely anyone who touched Mary would have been struck dead

From what I can tell that analogy is correct. That would be the perpetual Virginity.

Also from what I can tell you seem to suggest that because there is none good, then therefore they are explicitly bad. That is an assumption.

Being immaculate is a freedom from a negative. Doing good is an act of positive.

eg If I didn’t kill anybody that is freedom from a negative, but if I didn’t save anybody I have not performed a positive.

I think it is wrong to try and fit the none righteous not one into the context because its relating to positive acts that are pleasing to God.