Mary did what she was told

[lordssoldier]

and I sure hope Joseph said “BEYOTCH, MAKE ME A GAD DAMMEND SAMMICH”.

I’ll bet that Ho did what she was tolled.

 

[Leeann]

Good Fella:
St.Irenaeus was originally taught by St. Polycarp, who himself was taught by the apostle St. John. Hence, the former’s Marian teachings **are a development **of what was handed down to him by apostolic tradition.

There was/is no need for “development” of what the Apostles had already taught and preached and told the early churches to adhere too.

Good Fella:
His teachings (Marian or Christological) are not novelties of his own independently devised by proof-reading Scriptural texts. Rather they bring into **fuller relief **what is written implicitly in the Scriptures and was preached orally more explicitly by the apostles and their direct associates.

There was/is no need for what is written implictly in the Scriptures and what was preached and taught by the Apostles.

GoodFella:
Our Church Fathers? Well, at least you’re honest enough to own that you are outside the Church founded by Christ. Protestantism appeared over 600 years after the death of the last Church Father.

True believers don’t rely on the “developed”/“fuller relief” writings of the Church Fathers like the Catholic church does…true believers put their faith in Christ Jesus and what the Apostles taught with regards to the Holy Spirit leading us unto all Truth.

Good Fella:
It’s inappropriate to interpret the Scriptures divorced from apostolic tradition and without any deference towards the universal magisterium of the Church.

It’s inappropriate to interpret the Scriptures divorced from and without any deference towards the **belief **in what Jesus and His Apostles taught with regards to the Holy Spirit for all true and faithful believers.

Good Fella:
My above replies are in keeping with the Catholic faith as handed down to us by the apostles and their valid successors in the episcopate.

Your above replies are in keeping with the Catholic church’s “developed” and **“fuller ****relief” **teachings - not to be confused with the truth of the gospel message as taught and preachd by the Apostles.

Good Fella:
I’m not a dissenter.

There’s nothing wrong with being a dissenter - Jesus Himself was considered a “dissenter” with regards to the Pharisees and* their* religion of rituals and laws and man made traditions that kept the people bound up…

 

[Zooey]

Fundamentalists miss the whole concept of Mary’s HUMILITY when confronted by God’s messenger. This is something I have found fundies can’t comprehend because they lack so much of it themselves.

:sad_yes:

 

[Leeann]

Goodfella:
Anyway, Jesus was both fully divine and fully human with both a divine will and a human will. And he was sinless. Do you deny the Son of Man was really human and had a free will like ours because he was sinless, as Catholics believe?

I believe Jesus was really human and had a human will and that because of His divinity, He was sinless.

Goodfella:
Or do you believe that Jesus wasn’t fully human at all and simply possessed a divine will with no human will to act in conformity with it?

I believe He was human and possessed a human will as well as a divine will due to his divinity.

Goodfella:
Our free will is an attribute of our having been created in God’s image. And for this reason God will respect it in his wisdom and righteousness.

I believe our “free HUMAN will” is given by God’s Grace and is not the same as His Will, which is “divine”.

 

[Good_Fella]

There was/is no need for “development” of what the Apostles had already taught and preached and told the early churches to adhere too.

The early Church Fathers knew exactly what the Apostles orally taught and were able to perceive the broader theological implications contained in their authoratative teachings. Please do not confuse them with the heretics St. Paul had in mind: the Ebionites or Cerinthians, for instance. The Church is built on the foundation of the apostles (Eph 2:20). The full scope of their teachings isn’t reached with them. The apostles knew very well that other validly appointed men in the episcopate would have to succeed them to help build the edifice of our faith. Anyway, considering the time span and your severance from the historic Christian faith outside the Church, you cannot even possibly imagine what the Apostles actually preached orally other than what you would prefer they should have taught.

There was/is no need for what is written implictly in the Scriptures and what was preached and taught by the Apostles.

I guess not, since you believe that you know what the apostles had actually preached more explicitly. Your private understanding of the Scriptures should suffice. But I must warn you that Scripture is formally insufficient, for it often is implicit and must be read in a spiritual sense as well.

True believers don’t rely on the “developed”/“fuller relief” writings of the Church Fathers like the Catholic church does…true believers put their faith in Christ Jesus and what the Apostles taught with regards to the Holy Spirit leading us unto all Truth.

And how do you know that the Holy Spirit has led you unto all truth? Have you been sealed with the guarantee of the Holy Spirit? St. Paul instructs us that the charism of infallibilty lies with the episcopacy of the Church, not with private individuals or sects (2 Cor 1: 21:22). Bishop Irenaeus was never condemned as a heretic by the Catholic Church as was the gnostic and schismatic Valentinus (a would-be bishop) who had spurned apostolic tradition and the teaching authority of the universal episcopate. He believed that he was personally enlightened by the Holy Spirit as to what Jesus originally intended to teach. You remind me of him.

inappropriate to interpret the Scriptures divorced from and without any deference towards the **belief **in what Jesus and His Apostles taught with regards to the Holy Spirit for all true and faithful believers.

What you’re saying is that it’s inappropriate to interpret the Scriptures divorced from your own personal tradition and without any deference towards what you believe Jesus and his Apostles intended to teach.

Your above replies are in keeping with the Catholic church’s “developed” and **“fuller ****relief” **teachings - not to be confused with the truth of the gospel message as taught and preachd by the Apostles.

Do you honestly believe that the Apostles were in full intellectual possession of all the divine mysteries, that they were cognizant of all the theological implications contained in their teachings? It wasn’t until the 2nd century that the doctrine of original sin was first developed by - guess who? - Bishop Irenaeus in his contention with the gnostics. You’ll understand hardly anything comprehensive about original sin by just reading your Bible. Original Sin was a controversial topic of debate between the East and West for many centuries. Apparently, the Apostles weren’t as fully enlightened as you think. As the foundation of a rising edifice they served as a starting point by passing on the kernel of our Christian faith. They buried the mustard seed, so to speak. But the Apostles were inspired to write what could confirm the traditional teachings of the Church as they developed over time by the guidance of the Paraclete (Jn 16: 12-13). :newidea:

There’s nothing wrong with being a dissenter - Jesus Himself was considered a “dissenter” with regards to the Pharisees and* their* religion of rituals and laws and man made traditions that kept the people bound up…

Jesus himself performed and instituted a ritual at the Last Supper. St. John the Baptist performed a ritual when he baptized Jesus. The Apostles and the men they appointed performed rituals when they confirmed initiates and annointed the sick and the dying. Meanwhile, Jesus desires that we obey the Apostolic authority of His Church. He makes it clear through his ambassador St. Paul. I suggest you read the New Testament more carefully.

PAX :harp:

 

[Good_Fella]

I believe Jesus was really human and had a human will and that because of His divinity, He was sinless.

Jesus was sinless by his substantial grace of union with the Father. Mary was preserved free from the stain of original sin by God’s sanctifying grace and preserved personally sinless by His habitual grace. Mary freely cooperated with the actual signal graces she received by the Holy Spirit which helped her remain habitually sinless. This does not necessarily make Mary ontologically divine, now does it? Mary lived her life in accord with our Lord’s exhortation: Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect (Mt.5:48). God’s grace was sufficient for her to do so.

“Chaire kecharitomene.”
Luke 1, 28

I believe He was human and possessed a human will as well as a divine will due to his divinity.

Fine. Not unlike Jesus, the Son of Man, Mary conformed her human will to God the Father’s will.

“Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word.”
Luke 1, 38

“For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.”
John 6, 38

I believe our “free HUMAN will” is given by God’s Grace and is not the same as His Will, which is “divine”.

On the contrary, our human will is the same as the divine will in that it is free. We are expected to freely love God as he freely loves us. Only by the power of our own will can we* heed the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit* to love God in return.

“…most holy Virgin Mary because of her special privileges – her role as Mother of God being the pre-eminent one – Mary’s outstanding holiness was not just a singular gift from God. It was also the result of that fact that she freely and earnestly heeded the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit at all times.”
Pope Paul Vl, Signum Magnum [1967]

Pax Christu :harp: