Immaculate conception

[AmbroseSJ]

The East has a mouth as well. Its unfortunate that many in the West do not exercise this right for the Orthodox to be able to use it.

I agree. I think you would find that many modern Popes have gone out of their way to obtain the opinions and beliefs of the East. Keep in mind that the Byzantine Church is also the voice of the Church of the East within the Catholic Church.

My own opinion (shared by a majority of the Roman Church’s faithful) that Mary died before her Assumption is confirmed and virtually inarguable based on the ancient tradition of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary in the East. That tradition and belief is not so secure in the West (yet.) But there will come a time (as you have said) that the Holy Spirit will bring these two together.

 

[Fra_Angelo]

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

Would you pls explain how the Church preaches a different gospel and anathemised the Gospel?

 

[Trebor135]

Would you pls explain how the Church preaches a different gospel and anathemised the Gospel?

This question is off topic, so let’s ask a moderator to split the posts related to it into a new thread.

 

[Arthropod]

Arthropod;10636385]Please provide the biblical citation where someone touches the Virgin Mary.

You mean to say that Mary went through her whole life without anyone touching her? She never bumped into anyone at the market place?

Yet that is exactly what you are suggesting the Holy Spirit has done.

Was it mere coinicidence that Mary visited Elizebeth for 3 months–as the Ark came to stay with David for 3 months?

On the same hill in Judea?

That Daivd and John the Baptist are both said to ‘leap for joy’ when the respective Ark’s of the covenant come to them?

That both Arks are said to have been ‘overshadowed’ by the Holy Spirit?

That David and Elizebeth both use almost the exact same language in reacting in the same way–‘how is it that the Lord should come to me?’

Parallel/same circumstances, yielding same results–yet you would have us believe that this was meant to mean something althogher different–i.e.–that the Ark of the Old Covenant carrying the Word of God affixed on stone tablets, should somehow enjoy greater dignity than the Ark of the New Covenant carrying the Word of God, INCARNATE.

That would indeed be a contradiction.

Anecdotally–why else pray tell, is that passage of Mary’s visit to Elizebeth even in the Bible? Did we need infant John the Baptist to ‘leap for joy’ inside Elizebeth’s womb, to know Mary was carrying the Lord–i.e. the Word of God? Seems the Angel Gabriel made that pretty clear before Mary ever departed to visit Elizebeth…and elsewise subsequently… Again, your quotes are generalized statements concerning the geneal state of Man, after the Fall–such that they fail to make exception even for the Lord Himself. Clearly they were not intended to be read as such–nor to the exclusion of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant.

I have a problem with all this. Even assuming you are right in your biblical references, and also that the ark was immaculate (and I don’t remember the bible saying that), why is it that you believe that Mary absolutely positively MUST have this same characteristic?

Mary wasn’t a piece of wood, she didn’t have that characteristic, so why is it that she MUST be immaculate?

And the thing is: not one of those biblical references (assuming you haven’t ripped them all out of context) says Mary is immaculate. You infer that.

Is it theoretically possible that your inferals are wrong? I don’t really see why not.

And the bible is littered with statements explicitly stating that sin is wide spread, using words like “all”, “any”, “every” and “no one, not even one”.

Is it possible that these verses don’t mean what they say? I don’t see why they should be.

And the point about my quote from Augustine was more about what he said, not that I was trying to bash you with brute authority.
He interprets one of the verses in psalms as making one exception, Christ. Just one. Christ-and-Mary are not one.

 

[Arthropod]

Another question. If the bible had intended to teach total depravity, what stronger words could it possibly use that it has not already used?

 

[PRmerger]

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

I always find this argument so peculiar when it is proffered here.

Nonessential? Where the heck does the Bible talk about nonessentials vs essentials?

What verses tell us that something is an essential belief?

NB: each time I ask this, I get a list of verses that the poster finds, personally, to be an essential belief…

but NEVER has anyone ever posted verses that detail how one knows it’s an essential belief.

That’s because the Bible never tells us what’s an essential belief.



Just sayin’…

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Another question. If the bible had intended to teach total depravity, what stronger words could it possibly use that it has not already used?

Why post all of your off topic questions in this thread?

 

[Arthropod]

Why post all of your off topic questions in this thread?

It is not off topic. If depravity is total, then Mary is not immaculate. Right?

 

[Arthropod]

but NEVER has anyone ever posted verses that detail how one knows it’s an essential belief.

That’s because the Bible never tells us what’s an essential belief.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7hniiUF771rz8kqeo1_250.gif

Just sayin’…

I can think of several off the top of my head.

If anyone does not love the Lord, let that person be cursed! Come, Lord!

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel–which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

 

[PRmerger]

I can think of several off the top of my head.

Well, you did exactly what I predicted you would do. You gave your own ideas of what are essential verses, but nary a verse that says it’s an essential belief.

I am curious that you did not mention belief in ONE GOD. Don’t you think belief in monotheism is an essential?

What about the fact that God created the world? Is that not an essential belief?

Or that our sins are forgiven by the atoning death of Christ?

Or that Jesus rose from the dead?

Or belief in the Trinity?

Or belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Or that we need to worship Him one day a week?

Or that Scripture is inspired by God?

Or that a perfect sacrifice is offered eternally from east to west?

How can you be a Christian and exclude some/all of the above things I mentioned?

Where does the Bible give us this list of essentials, Arthropod?..

And what if I take a verse in the Bible and ask you if it’s essential or secondary? How do you know?

For example, is Malachi 1:11 essential? And how do you know?

NB: There are indeed “essentials”. But one does not get that from the Scriptures, but rather from the Church.

 

[Arthropod]

Well, you did exactly what I predicted you would do. You gave your own ideas of what are essential verses, but nary a verse that says it’s an essential belief.

Read it again. “Let him be anathema/accursed/eternally condemed” means it is a salvation issue. “He cannot be my disciple”, again, another way of saying “He cannot enter heaven”. Do you mean to say there is any possibility these are not salvation issues?

I am curious that you did not mention belief in ONE GOD. Don’t you think belief in monotheism is an essential?

Those quotes were by no means an exaustive list, but simply a few I could think of off the top of my head, like I said.

What about the fact that God created the world? Is that not an essential belief?

Or that our sins are forgiven by the atoning death of Christ?

Or that Jesus rose from the dead?

Or belief in the Trinity?

Or belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Or that we need to worship Him one day a week?

Or that Scripture is inspired by God?

Or that a perfect sacrifice is offered eternally from east to west?

How can you be a Christian and exclude some/all of the above things I mentioned?

Where does the Bible give us this list of essentials, Arthropod?..

And what if I take a verse in the Bible and ask you if it’s essential or secondary? How do you know?

For example, is Malachi 1:11 essential? And how do you know?

NB: There are indeed “essentials”. But one does not get that from the Scriptures, but rather from the Church.

I would say that strictly speaking, the only truly essential issue is whether you have the Holy Spirit endwelling in you. Its just that it would be kind of hard to have that if you don’t believe in God.

I don’t have a list, much less an inspired list, and I don’t get why you think it is so vitally important that I do.

 

[PRmerger]

Read it again. “Let him be anathema/accursed/eternally condemed” means it is a salvation issue. “He cannot be my disciple”, again, another way of saying “He cannot enter heaven”. Do you mean to say there is any possibility these are not salvation issues?

Of course I think it’s a salvation issue. I’m just saying that to declare that there are essentials and non-essentials is to NOT be a Sola Scriptura advocate. You know what’s an essential because a CHURCH told you.

Those quotes were by no means an exaustive list, but simply a few I could think of off the top of my head, like I said.

Again, what you would be doing would be to give your opinions of what’s an essential and what’s not.

But you wouldn’t be using the Bible to tell you.

And, again, is Malachi 1:11 an essential verse? If not, how do you know? If so, how do you know?

I would say that strictly speaking, the only truly essential issue is whether you have the Holy Spirit endwelling in you. Its just that it would be kind of hard to have that if you don’t believe in God.

Interesting. What Bible verse says this is “the only truly essential” belief?

I don’t have a list, much less an inspired list,

Exactly, Arthropod. Egg-zactly.

and I don’t get why you think it is so vitally important that I do.

Is this not your comment that you made here:

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

So I just want to know how you can tell, using the Bible alone, what’s a nonessential issue.

You need to back up your claim with Scripture.

Else, you can see, you are espousing some beliefs NOT FOUND in the Bible.

 

[Arthropod]

Of course I think it’s a salvation issue. I’m just saying that to declare that there are essentials and non-essentials is to NOT be a Sola Scriptura advocate. You know what’s an essential because a CHURCH told you.

Again, what you would be doing would be to give your opinions of what’s an essential and what’s not.

But you wouldn’t be using the Bible to tell you.

And, again, is Malachi 1:11 an essential verse? If not, how do you know? If so, how do you know?

Interesting. What Bible verse says this is “the only truly essential” belief?

Exactly, Arthropod. Egg-zactly.

Is this not your comment that you made here:

So I just want to know how you can tell, using the Bible alone, what’s a nonessential issue.

You need to back up your claim with Scripture.

Else, you can see, you are espousing some beliefs NOT FOUND in the Bible.

There is a core of doctrines held by pretty much all protestant churches. This core is the part that gets the lions share of the new testament statements on doctrinal matters. This core is the gospel.

The Roman church preaches a different gospel.

Paul placed anyone who preached a different gospel than what he taught under anathema. He told the Galatians that if they followed this different gospel, Christ would be of no use to them, which I suppose means they go to hell.

Nowhere in the NT does anyone use such strong language about calvinists, or aminianists, or premillenialists, or whocaresaboutdoctrineanywayilists.

There. The bible teaches that the differences between protestants and romans are fundamental to salvation. The bible does not teach that differences between protestants are fundamental to salvation.

Therefore, differences between protestants are trivial by comparison.

Does that satisfy you?

 

[PRmerger]

There is a core of doctrines held by pretty much all protestant churches. This core is the part that gets the lions share of the new testament statements on doctrinal matters. This core is the gospel.

This core is the gospel? Really.

What does that mean? The 4 gospels only?

Also, can you provide a source from each of these protestant churches to which you allude that says this?

 

[PRmerger]

There. The bible teaches that the differences between protestants and romans are fundamental to salvation. The bible does not teach that differences between protestants are fundamental to salvation.

Okey-dokey. If you could provide where the bible teaches this…book, chapter and verse please.

(I think it’s right behind the verse that proclaims the Immaculate Conception, )

 

[FireFromHeaven]

There is a core of doctrines held by pretty much all protestant churches. This core is the part that gets the lions share of the new testament statements on doctrinal matters. This core is the gospel.

The Roman church preaches a different gospel.

Paul placed anyone who preached a different gospel than what he taught under anathema. He told the Galatians that if they followed this different gospel, Christ would be of no use to them, which I suppose means they go to hell.

Nowhere in the NT does anyone use such strong language about calvinists, or aminianists, or premillenialists, or whocaresaboutdoctrineanywayilists.

There. The bible teaches that the differences between protestants and romans are fundamental to salvation. The bible does not teach that differences between protestants are fundamental to salvation.

Therefore, differences between protestants are trivial by comparison.

Does that satisfy you?

First off, no they don’t. Protestants denominations only agree on Jesus’ person and that only faith is needed for salvation. Everything else is left to the denominations to decide. Even with Fairh alone there is disagreement over who actually is saved by that faith. Some say Adam and Eve are literal, others say they are allegories. Some say that Christ is present in the Eucharist others say he is not. The more denominations you bring in the less agreement you get.

On your gospel comment, all the churches you mentioned do teach a different gospel. Also the bible agrees with the “roman” doctrine of faith through works by grace. What else could James have meant by " Not by faith alone"? “Faith without works is dead”? Is there only one truth? If there is then why do you tolerate 38000 different truths? If Jesus only taught one truth why is any variation hand waved? Are only the elect saved? Is everyone saved? Is God or isn’t God present at the altar? These are not trivial.

God bless.

 

[Cyberseeker]

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

I guess we’d have less to “protest” if you could.

Ah well, she was a **super **young lady. We can all say amen to that!

 

[FireFromHeaven]

I guess we’d have less to “protest” if you could.

Ah well, she was a **super **young lady. We can all say amen to that!

How young was Mary? Do we know that?

 

[PRmerger]

On your gospel comment, all the churches you mentioned do teach a different gospel.

Egg-zactly.

And the response, I’m predicting, from Arthropod will be: they agree on the essentials.

And that’s where we Catholics are going to ask: what are these essentials, and how do you know they’re essentials?

And so the circle begins again.

POINT: the Bible does not declare something to be an essential or non-essential doctrine.

We know what’s essential and non-essential through the CHURCH.
NOT the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

First off, no they don’t. Protestants denominations only agree on Jesus’ person and that only faith is needed for salvation. Everything else is left to the denominations to decide. Even with Fairh alone there is disagreement over who actually is saved by that faith. Some say Adam and Eve are literal, others say they are allegories. Some say that Christ is present in the Eucharist others say he is not. The more denominations you bring in the less agreement you get.

Indeed.

See this (non-exhaustive) list of differing gospels taught by Protestant denominations:

*Abortion
• Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
• Baptism (sprinkling? Immersion? Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? In Jesus’ name only? Using Trinitarian formula?)
• Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves?)
• Church leadership, or no leadership
• Death/Soul Sleep
• Did Jesus use wine or grape juice at the Last Supper
• Divorce
• Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
• Head coverings or no head coverings
• Health and wealth gospel
• Hell, or no hell
• Homosexuality
• Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
• Judge others, don’t judge others
• Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
• Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
• Once saved, always saved
• Ordination
• Predestination
• Rapture
• Sola scriptura/private interpretation
• The Eucharist (Communion)
• Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
• Trinity vs. Unitarianism
• What’s a sin, what is not a sin
• When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
• Women pastors, no women pastors