non-Catholic Christians - "Did You Know"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomster said:
The Church says Mary was born without original sin. I believe that to be true.
Click to expand...
News flash! The Church never believed that. Rome defined the innovation in 1854. 🤷
Tomster said:
The question of the transmission of original sin from generation to generation presents no great difficulty once its nature has been settled
Click to expand...
Brush up on your Church history. Original sin is not an inherited stain. We inherit nothing from Adam. But because of his sin, we are born into a fallen world and are subject to the passions and death. Everyone is born into this fallen world–including the Virgin Mary. However, she remained sinless through her own freewill. Do you realize what an amazing grace it is to choose to remain sinless? It can only be done through God’s grace.
Tomster said:
the meaning of of some revealed doctrine grows clearer, though in substance and reality it has been firmly believed from the beginning.
Click to expand...
I believe that the common apologetic of “doctrinal development and clarity”, is a spin doctored way of justifying doctrinal innovation.
Tomster said:
From the very first the Church taught that all the children of Adam are born in a state of enmity with God and need to be reborn and cleansed in the Sacrament of Baptism.
Click to expand...
Yes.
But we inherit nothing.
We are born into the fallen world.
That includes everyone.
And yes, baptism is essential.
 
Mickey said:
News flash! The Church never believed that. Rome defined the innovation in 1854. 🤷
Click to expand...
The Church has always believed it!!! Rome confirmed it!!! :yup:

http://www.ewtn.com/art/mary/immacula.jpg
O God, who by the Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
did prepare a worthy dwelling place for Your Son,
we beseech You that, as by the foreseen death of this, Your Son, You did preserve Her from all stain,
so too You would permit us, purified through Her intercession, to come unto You.
Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son, who lives and reigns with You in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God, world without end.

Amen.
 
SiempreFiel said:
The Church has always believed it!!! Rome confirmed it!!! :yup:

http://www.ewtn.com/art/mary/immacula.jpg
O God, who by the Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
did prepare a worthy dwelling place for Your Son,
we beseech You that, as by the foreseen death of this, Your Son, You did preserve Her from all stain,
so too You would permit us, purified through Her intercession, to come unto You.
Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son, who lives and reigns with You in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God, world without end.

Amen.
Click to expand...
Rome invented it.
 
SiempreFiel said:
The Church has always believed it!!! Rome confirmed it!!! :yup:

http://www.ewtn.com/art/mary/immacula.jpg
O God, who by the Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
did prepare a worthy dwelling place for Your Son,
we beseech You that, as by the foreseen death of this, Your Son, You did preserve Her from all stain,
so too You would permit us, purified through Her intercession, to come unto You.
Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son, who lives and reigns with You in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God, world without end.

Amen.
Click to expand...
AMEN ! ! !
 
Mickey said:
I believe that the common apologetic of “doctrinal development and clarity”, is a spin doctored way of justifying doctrinal innovation.
Click to expand...
Is this spurious prophetic revelation something new that Protestants should be having world conventions on to consider adding to it common protestant scripture or taken as emergent tradition?

James
 
CentralFLJames said:
Is this spurious prophetic revelation something new that Protestants should be having world conventions on to consider adding to it common protestant scripture or taken as emergent tradition?
Click to expand...
I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Is this related to your superstitious belief in the Malachi prohecies?
 
Mickey said:
Only since 1854–and only for Rome. You will even find that many Eastern Catholics do not accept this “dogma”.
Click to expand...
It was TRUE. It is TRUE. It will always be TRUE!!!

It will always be TRUE despite of what CATHOLICS believe.
It will always be TRUE despite of what ORTHODOX believe.
It will always be TRUE despite of what ANGLICANS believe.
It will always be TRUE despite of what MORMONS believe.
It will always be TRUE despite of what ATHEISTS believe.
It will always be TRUE despite of what ANYONE believes.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception will always be TRUE because Almighty God revealed it to Holy Mother Church!!!

Let us perpetually give honor and glory to the Most Holy Trinity and to the Blessed Virgin Mary who was conceived without sin! AMEN
 
Righteousone said:
So by calling St. James Epistle an “Epistle of Straw”, was that Scripture infallible to Luther also?
Click to expand...
Luther’s “Epistle of Straw”

04/03/2007 - James Swan

Almost five hundred years after the fact, Roman Catholics still scrutinize Martin Luther. One the most popular quotations from Luther is the infamous “epistle of straw” remark, directed at the canonicity of the book of James. It really is amazing how frequently this citation appears. It is usually brought forth as proof one must believe an infallible church authored an infallible list of infallible books. Without this, one subjectively decides which books are canonical, like Martin Luther supposedly did in the sixteenth century.If you find yourself in dialog facing this quote, there are a few facts and arguments you should know.
First, this quote only appears in Luther’s original 1522 Preface to the New Testament. After 1522, all the editions of Luther’s Bible dropped the “epistle of straw” comment, along with the entire paragraph that placed value judgments on particular biblical books. It was Luther himself who edited these comments out. For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do him an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.
Second, detractors are keen on selectively quoting Luther’s preface to James. Most often cited are only those comments that express negativity. If one takes the times to actually read Luther’s comments about James, he praises it and considers it a “good book” “because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.” Rarely have I seen Luther detractors inform a reader Luther praises James, or respects God’s law. On the other hand, I have seen many Catholics insist Luther was either morally corrupt or an antinomian. Luther though insists James is worthy of praise because it puts forth Gods law.
 
It doesn’t mater how many times you say “It will always be TRUE” it still won’t be because it never was true in the first place.
 
Mickey said:
News flash! The Church never believed that. Rome defined the innovation in 1854. 🤷
Brush up on your Church history. Original sin is not an inherited stain. We inherit nothing from Adam. But because of his sin, we are born into a fallen world and are subject to the passions and death. Everyone is born into this fallen world–including the Virgin Mary. However, she remained sinless through her own freewill. Do you realize what an amazing grace it is to choose to remain sinless? It can only be done through God’s grace.
I believe that the common apologetic of “doctrinal development and clarity”, is a spin doctored way of justifying doctrinal innovation.

Yes.
But we inherit nothing.
We are born into the fallen world.
That includes everyone.
And yes, baptism is essential.
Click to expand...
The first effect of original sin, as regards this present life, is, of course, the loss of sanctifying grace with all therein involved, to wit, the loss of the theological and moral virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Although this loss is the very essence of original sin, it may also, from another point of view, be regarded as an effect.

The canon of the Council of Trent (Session V, canon 2) which defines the Catholic teaching on this point, indicates that the deprivation of grace has two aspects: it has the nature of sin in so far as it is an aversion from God, and the nature of the penalty in so far as we are thereby left bereft of the power and means of attaining the final end to which we were destined.
 
East_Anglican said:
It doesn’t mater how many times you say “It will always be TRUE” it still won’t be because it never was true in the first place.
Click to expand...
Has anyone, anywhere within the many different branches of Anglicanism ever infallibly stated that it was not true?
 
East_Anglican said:
It doesn’t mater how many times you say “It will always be TRUE” it still won’t be because it never was true in the first place.
Click to expand...
Please tell me you are not making an infallible statement.

Please tell us that you are just giving us your personal opinion.
 
abcd said:
Luther’s “Epistle of Straw”

04/03/2007 - James Swan

Almost five hundred years after the fact, Roman Catholics still scrutinize Martin Luther. One the most popular quotations from Luther is the infamous “epistle of straw” remark, directed at the canonicity of the book of James. It really is amazing how frequently this citation appears. It is usually brought forth as proof one must believe an infallible church authored an infallible list of infallible books. Without this, one subjectively decides which books are canonical, like Martin Luther supposedly did in the sixteenth century.If you find yourself in dialog facing this quote, there are a few facts and arguments you should know.
First, this quote only appears in Luther’s original 1522 Preface to the New Testament. After 1522, all the editions of Luther’s Bible dropped the “epistle of straw” comment, along with the entire paragraph that placed value judgments on particular biblical books. It was Luther himself who edited these comments out. For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do him an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.
Second, detractors are keen on selectively quoting Luther’s preface to James. Most often cited are only those comments that express negativity. If one takes the times to actually read Luther’s comments about James, he praises it and considers it a “good book” “because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.” Rarely have I seen Luther detractors inform a reader Luther praises James, or respects God’s law. On the other hand, I have seen many Catholics insist Luther was either morally corrupt or an antinomian. Luther though insists James is worthy of praise because it puts forth Gods law.
Click to expand...
Did Luther ever drop that “faith alone” innovation?
 
SiempreFiel said:
Let us perpetually give honor and glory to the Most Holy Trinity and to the Blessed Virgin Mary who was conceived without sin! AMEN
Click to expand...
There is a great worship of the Holy Trinity and honor of Our Lady in the Holy Orthodox Church. But the dogma of IC is an innovation and it does not matter how many capital letters you use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top