Sat (Dec 12) Mass readings (Mary was saved before conception?)

[rev_kevin]

JL: Your point would be? Are you impling you are a Baptist?

JL: God didn’t come IN human FROM, God=Jesus BECAME human. The Word was God and the Word BECAME FLESH. [1Jn4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.]

JL: So you reject scripture telling us John the Baptist and Jeremaih were SANCTIFIED in the womb, therefore NOT born with original sin?

Bad attempt to TWIST on your part. What does being born without original sin have to do with being brought up by anyone?

Yes I am a Baptist.

I John 4:3 means the antichrist will be a person who epitomizes all that is evil and he will be readily received by and evil world. the sprirt of the antichrist is alreadh here.

No I don’t reject scripture show me where it say that.

Yopu said the Christ didn’t reside inside Joseph Christ can’t become man receiving his body and blood from Joseph.
Of course he didn’t but he was raised by him. read what I wrote.

 

[Mosacked]

It seems to me you’re confused with the discussion, or maybe I’m misreading your statement somehow? Saying Mary was immaculately conceived, is not saying she is the way. Can you please clarify what you’re trying to imply?

I said what I said, just too bad you cannot understand simple statements.

Anyway, for Rev_Kevin, don’t worry too much, the argument between Theotokos and Christotokos has been on for ages.

Theotokos: God-bearer. The Council of Ephesus, re-affirming the deity of Christ, said that Mary was the “Bearer of God” and not just of a person who was merely human. Later Catholicism preferred to translate this as “Mother of God”. Protestants recoil at this, and prefer the term Christotokos, bearer of Christ, for Mary was the mother of Jesus in His HUMANITY, not in His deity. God (the alpha & omega - beginning & end) has no mother, saying Mary is the mother of God (which indirectly deitifies her) is an insult to Christian sensibilities.

.

 

[GraceDK]

**

Grace

The Immaculate Conception IS implicitly taught in Scripture. But, like other Christian doctrines such as the Holy Trinity - it is not explicitly taught.

We do have very specific writings in Holy Scripture that makes clear there is a Person who is Father, a Person who is Son and a Person who is the Holy Spirit. I can give you reference if you want but I assume you know these places too.
As for the immaculate conception you can read allegorically and symbolically and come to the conclusion through meditation and prayer that these allegories (eg. Ark - Virgin Mary) imply sinlessless from birth. But Trinity and Immaculate conception have a vast difference when it comes to explicit proof in the Bible.

Whereas the symbols of God’s word were contained in the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, Mary actually carried God himself - the Word - in her womb in the New Testament.
And, whereas the Old Testament Ark had to be made of pure materials and blessed and undefiled, how much more pure and undefiled would the vessel that actually carried God have to be?

Very well, but I would say her womb is a pretty neutral thing. A material such as gold in the OT is no more pure anyhow than the inner woman. The material in itself is pretty neutral. Sorry… but you have to grant me that its not a given, but must be revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Church because it cannot precisely be deduced from Scripture. I’d like to refer you the angelic doctor Thomas Aquinas who even was against the doctrine of the Immaculate conception. He said this not because he was a mean protestant without history, but because he, in his wisdom thought it a wrong assumption without enough proof.

Non-Catholics say that it doesn’t matter who gave birth to Jesus. They say that Jesus could have been born from anybody and still been the Messiah - he could have even been born of a harlot.

Excuse me? You just made the curtain go down on me… harlot? So in your optic there are two kinds of women, harlots and… the Virgin Mary? ( I wonder how you regard your wife?)
I think you do not know the wisdom of God. In Him both the Old and new Ecclesia is a Bride of God, an Adopted Son albeit with difference in degree… please, don’t be a blasphemer.

but in order to fulfill all righteousness, his coming had to be more glorious than the Old Testament type. He chose Mary out of all of the women in history to be his mother.
New Testament fulfillments of types found in the Old Testament are more glorious and perfect than the type itself. This rule of Scripture is without exception.

I see you read Karl Keating or Scott Hahn… Its still a circle argument taken already from the criteria that the immaculate conception is a fact. Not everything you read about in the OT has a typal reality in the New, so again you assume too much. You can use it as retrospective reflection, but you cannot convince any non-Catholic by using these images that there is a corresponding reality in the New Testament in the way that the RCC teaches.

My point is again, if you believe the teaching authority of the Church you are likely to believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. For an outsider it’s totally odd… This is a fact and does not change after a bit of symbolic reading of the Old Testament.
I have read the books you have read and do study theology, but I also see when an argument like yours take things too far.

Peace and a blessed Advent**

 

[GraceDK]

As for you REV
you deliberately misquoted me and mocked me.
I did not say I believe in *most things *taught by the Catholic Church. I said I believe in them all, but that I admit I didn’t understand the need to proclaim the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
The Immaculate Conception is also believed, as far as I understand, among our Orthodox brethren, but they did not make a dogma out of it. I like their approach better therefore, than the Catholic one in this area.

I am where God has placed me… And oh believe me, I was kicking sometimes, looking for a way to get out because my first Catholic parish chuch was not very nice. I would yell to God and challenge Him directly on Catholic teaching and say: “God it seems that the protestant brethren are right about this and that… so, You know… if you allow me I’ll be baptist, pentecostal or whatever tomorrow… as long as I am in Your Will, I just wanna be in Your Will wherever that takes me.”

Two times I did that, give an ultimatum, not wanting to listen to my brethren… The Good Lord had to feed me with a spoon. One time was a question about the Virgin Mary… Both times He spoke to me directly. I cannot say why… probably because I was not as wretched back then, but I actually prayed severel hours a day. He gave me answers and opened my eyes to Scripture which’ implication I had never grasped although it was right there in front of me all of my Christian life.

Two times, means I know God has placed me here for a reason. He is so good to me.
You can ridicule me all that you want. I do not understand the Immaculate Conception, but I do believe God’s Word when He said: “He will make His wisdom known Through the Church”.
The only way you avoid having questions and unsolved issues with your Church, is if you make a new church like you do, reverent, where you are the defining interpretor, pastor and teacher.
But making new “denominations” is not the way of Christ.

And don’t blame me because you presented yourself as ignorant when it came to the existence of the Immaculate Conception.
As I said you have my applause in this debate, which I think you win on the common criteria which we have, Holy Scripture, albeit that does not mean you are right in your conclusion, only that you do not accept any Tradition but your own.

Peace.

 

[rev_kevin]

As for you REV
you deliberately misquoted me and mocked me.
I did not say I believe in *most things *taught by the Catholic Church. I said I believe in them all, but that I admit I didn’t understand the need to proclaim the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
The Immaculate Conception is also believed, as far as I understand, among our Orthodox brethren, but they did not make a dogma out of it. I like their approach better therefore, than the Catholic one in this area.

I am where God has placed me… And oh believe me, I was kicking sometimes, looking for a way to get out because my first Catholic parish chuch was not very nice. I would yell to God and challenge Him directly on Catholic teaching and say: “God it seems that the protestant brethren are right about this and that… so, You know… if you allow me I’ll be baptist, pentecostal or whatever tomorrow… as long as I am in Your Will, I just wanna be in Your Will wherever that takes me.”

Two times I did that, give an ultimatum, not wanting to listen to my brethren… The Good Lord had to feed me with a spoon. One time was a question about the Virgin Mary… Both times He spoke to me directly. I cannot say why… probably because I was not as wretched back then, but I actually prayed severel hours a day. He gave me answers and opened my eyes to Scripture which’ implication I had never grasped although it was right there in front of me all of my Christian life.

Two times, means I know God has placed me here for a reason. He is so good to me.
You can ridicule me all that you want. I do not understand the Immaculate Conception, but I do believe God’s Word when He said: “He will make His wisdom known Through the Church”.
The only way you avoid having questions and unsolved issues with your Church, is if you make a new church like you do, reverent, where you are the defining interpretor, pastor and teacher.
But making new “denominations” is not the way of Christ.

And don’t blame me because you presented yourself as ignorant when it came to the existence of the Immaculate Conception.
As I said you have my applause in this debate, which I think you win on the common criteria which we have, Holy Scripture, albeit that does not mean you are right in your conclusion, only that you do not accept any Tradition but your own.

Peace.

As far as me misquoting and making a mockery of you, here is your words from post 145
“I have found it hard to swallow {Immaculate Conception} I have decided to accept it because ‘PRETTY MUCH’ everying eles in the Catholic church makes sense to me.”
Pretty much don’t mean “all.” So I did not in fact misquote you or make a mockery of you. These are your own words.

And I am where God has placed me also.

I am a Baptist, but I preach non-denomination because where I preach there are many different religions and I say I’m a non-denomination so not to offend any one religion.
So I did not make up my own religion.

You see it as irogant because I don’t see it the way they want me to see it.

 

[GraceDK]

As far as me misquoting and making a mockery of you, here is your words from post 145
“I have found it hard to swallow {Immaculate Conception} I have decided to accept it because ‘PRETTY MUCH’ everying eles in the Catholic church makes sense to me.”
Pretty much don’t mean “all.” So I did not in fact misquote you or make a mockery of you. These are your own words.

And I am where God has placed me also.

I am a Baptist, but I preach non-denomination because where I preach there are many different religions and I say I’m a non-denomination so not to offend any one religion.
So I did not make up my own religion.
You see it as irogant because I don’t see it the way they want me to see it.

Need I say more…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Need I say more…

I see irony in someone being ‘offended’ by our beliefs, yet we maintain the truth about our beliefs, and then the person who finds our beliefs offensive openly admits to telling other than the truth so the people who attend the same Church will not be offended.

 

[GraceDK]

I see irony in someone being ‘offended’ by our beliefs, yet we maintain the truth about our beliefs, and then the person who finds our beliefs offensive openly admits to telling other than the truth so the people who attend the same Church will not be offended.

I think our brother must be tired since he wrote what he did. surely he does not mean to hide the truth in order to please the flesh.
At any rate I am out of here, I happen to like the rev and think he has many good points but I see this whole thread is going down in unclear talk, misunderstandings and personal attacks that make people just tired…
I am sorry for the ways in which I too failed to be clear about my belief.

Peace be with you all

 

[jlhargus]

I said what I said, just too bad you cannot understand simple statements.

Anyway, for Rev_Kevin, don’t worry too much, the argument between Theotokos and Christotokos has been on for ages.

Theotokos: God-bearer. The Council of Ephesus, re-affirming the deity of Christ, said that Mary was the “Bearer of God” and not just of a person who was merely human. Later Catholicism preferred to translate this as “Mother of God”. Protestants recoil at this, and prefer the term Christotokos, bearer of Christ, for Mary was the mother of Jesus in His HUMANITY, not in His deity. God (the alpha & omega - beginning & end) has no mother, saying Mary is the mother of God (which indirectly deitifies her) is an insult to Christian sensibilities. .

JL: Jn1:1 the WORD WAS GOD Jn 1:14 the WORD was MADE FLESH. If God was MADE flesh and that flesh was born of Mary. Mary is mother of God made flesh. Mary is mother of God in time not from all eternity. Mary is mother of the God man, Jesus Christ, who IS God come in the flesh.

1Jn4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: EVERY SPIRIT THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT JESUS CHRIST HAS COME IN THE FLESH IS FROM GOD, 3 but EVERY SPIRIT THAT DOES NOT acknowledge Jesus IS NOT FROM GOD. THIS IS THE SPIRIT OF THE ANTICHRIST, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

 

[elvisman]

We do have very specific writings in Holy Scripture that makes clear there is a Person who is Father, a Person who is Son and a Person who is the Holy Spirit. I can give you reference if you want but I assume you know these places too.
As for the immaculate conception you can read allegorically and symbolically and come to the conclusion through meditation and prayer that these allegories (eg. Ark - Virgin Mary) imply sinlessless from birth. But Trinity and Immaculate conception have a vast difference when it comes to explicit proof in the Bible.

I hate to disagree with you but the Trinity is NOT explicitly taught. It is implicitly taught – yet it is a major tenet of Christianity. Virtually every heresy in history begins with the misconception of the nature of God.

Very well, but I would say her womb is a pretty neutral thing. A material such as gold in the OT is no more pure anyhow than the inner woman. The material in itself is pretty neutral. Sorry… but you have to grant me that its not a given, but must be revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Church because it cannot precisely be deduced from Scripture. I’d like to refer you the angelic doctor Thomas Aquinas who even was against the doctrine of the Immaculate conception. He said this not because he was a mean protestant without history, but because he, in his wisdom thought it a wrong assumption without enough proof.

Mary’s womb is a “neutral thing”? It was the vessel of God. The council of Ephesus in 431 declared Mary “Theotokos” (God-bearer). This wasn’t a title giver to her because of what she did – it was given to her to emphasize WHO she had inside of her – GOD.

Contrary to what most Protestants say – she wasn’t only Jesus’ mother according to the flesh. This was the error of the Nestorian Heresy that denied the hypostatic union of Jesus, who united to himself 2 natures – that of a human and a divine person.

I think you also misunderstand the symbolism of the purity of gold. Gold itself is not “pure” in the sense that it is holy or spiritually undefiled. As it pertains to the Ark – it was symbolically pure because it was the most precious of metals.

 

[elvisman]

Excuse me? You just made the curtain go down on me… harlot? So in your optic there are two kinds of women, harlots and… the Virgin Mary? ( I wonder how you regard your wife?)
I think you do not know the wisdom of God. In Him both the Old and new Ecclesia is a Bride of God, an Adopted Son albeit with difference in degree… please, don’t be a blasphemer.

Blasphemer? Did you even bother to read what I wrote?
**I never said that there were only 2 kinds of women. I was making a distinction between 2 polar opposites. This has been written about by Protestant scholars such as the virulent anti-Catholic John MacArthur to Norman Geisler. They make those comparisons – I was merely relaying them to you.
****Please read the post again before accusing me of blasphemy.
**quote=GraceDK;6078146]I see you read Karl Keating or Scott Hahn… Its still a circle argument taken already from the criteria that the immaculate conception is a fact. Not everything you read about in the OT has a typal reality in the New, so again you assume too much. You can use it as retrospective reflection, but you cannot convince any non-Catholic by using these images that there is a corresponding reality in the New Testament in the way that the RCC teaches.
**I disagree – and so does the Church. This also comes from what appears to be some leftover adherence to the extremely flawed doctrine of Sola Scriptura. **
**Remember that St. Paul called the Church “the pillar and foundation of truth.” He didn’t say that the Scriptures were – but that the CHURCH was.

St. Augustine said, very wisely, I might add:**
***“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New.”
***This statement means that unless one understands the Old Testament, one cannot understand the New Testament. The OT is riddled with symbolism and typology unveiled in the NT. To deny that is to deny God’s revealed truth.
**You can rationalize that all you want – but in the end, you’re only denying the truth.
**

My point is again, if you believe the teaching authority of the Church you are likely to believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. For an outsider it’s totally odd… This is a fact and does not change after a bit of symbolic reading of the Old Testament.
I have read the books you have read and do study theology, but I also see when an argument like yours take things too far. Peace and a blessed Advent

**Of course it is totally odd to the outsider. An outsider cannot possibly know the truth unless they accept Church authority, which is explicitly taught in Scripture.

When a Protestant – and some Catholics - denies even part of God’s truth, they’re shutting themselves off from God.
Take the explicit**** teaching of the Eucharist in John 6. When Jesus’ disciples left and returned to their former way of life (John 6:66) – they were rejecting what God himself was teaching them. They were so shocked by this teaching because, as Jesus told them – they couldn’t *****possibly *****understand it unless God revealed it to them.
**That is Protestantism in a nutshell - and that is why it is a perpetually splintering entity.

 

[rev_kevin]

Need I say more…

Yes you do. Can you please explain what you mean by “Need I say more.”

 

[GraceDK]

Yes you do. Can you please explain what you mean by “Need I say more.”

Sure I can.
I was hinting at the fact that you apparently think its wrong for me to be a Catholic since I don’t comprehend the teaching about the immaculate conception (or at least the need for it’s disctinct being made a dogma, although I understand the teachings behind it), which is but one theme in the whole of the historical church.
You seem to imply then, that I should leave the church because of this issue, that I should not trust the 2000 year old Church, but trust my own limited comprehension in this one question and go elsewhere… and where would you have me go? The rest of Christianity seems utterly confused to me… In my country the Protestant Church remarries people, blesses homosexual “marriages” and has lesbian pastors and even pastors that say they dont believe in God… In the Pentecostal Church I see that each group is saying different things, and the different preachers they invite are saying different things, eg. some are totally anti-catholic and concerned with the end-times and say I and my brethren are headed for the fire, Others call us brrothers, others again preach a prosperity-gospel, some are very conservative and some are liberel. It seems to depend on the pastor (and I do admire these Pentecostals though bcause of their enthusiasm and wonderful testimony). You see there is no unity, and the oppinions of the churches are under heavy influence from the winds of the times. There are no real authorities (and I really dont think God would leave us as sheep without a shepherd), and no knowlege about church history. Even the beloved brother church of ours, the Orthodox, allow divorce now.
So brother, I guess what I think is that the Catholic church is the most trustworthy church today- albeit its problems - , also in any historical perspective (You hear Evangelicals saying the “real church” has been hidden during history due to Catholic persecution, but they have no evidence that this church ever existed nor of any martyrs… except maybe for the ones that came from big heresies).

So when you wrote this:
“I am a Baptist, but I preach non-denomination because where I preach there are many different religions and I say I’m a non-denomination so not to offend any one religion.
So I did not make up my own religion.”
I thought you really must be tired because you sound like you just want to please people instead of saying what you believe to be the truth that God intended…
If you teach something “in order not to offend other religions” I really think you have to step back and wonder if you are serving Christ or yourself. I dont see how you could question my foundation for staying put in my Church then… or at least it seemed ironic.
Anyhow.
Peace to you… I’ll be on the other threads.

Shalom and Peace

 

[GraceDK]

elvisman:
When a Protestant – and some Catholics - denies even part of God’s truth, they’re shutting themselves off from God.

elvisman I already know that the things you have said are used to defend the dogma.
However, I still maintain the point that you cannot argue on Scripture alone for the immaculate conception, and this is what I find most important here in the debate with REV. Whatever argument you have made has been retrospective from the statement of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

I also wish to highlight the thing you said that I quote above. You are alone with that statement, and it’s not Catholic teaching. The Protestants are our brethren in as much as they confess and believe that Jesus is the Lord and live according to that belief as well as they can according to conscience and knowlege. Saying that people who do not eg. accept the immaculate conception or another dogma are “shutting themselves off from God” is an arrogant and un-catholic remark. Please do read the New Testament and the CCC and realise that Christ alone is our Saviour.

Peace to you and good night.

 

[distracted]

And what does this have to do with what I wrote?

well, it ends the discussion…

because if the RCC is the one Christ established on Earth (and it is), whatever the Church teaches can be trusted…

the Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual vrigin…

the Church cannot teach error (St Mt 16:18)

 

[rev_kevin]

Sure I can.
I was hinting at the fact that you apparently think its wrong for me to be a Catholic since I don’t comprehend the teaching about the immaculate conception (or at least the need for it’s disctinct being made a dogma, although I understand the teachings behind it), which is but one theme in the whole of the historical church.
You seem to imply then, that I should leave the church because of this issue, that I should not trust the 2000 year old Church, but trust my own limited comprehension in this one question and go elsewhere… and where would you have me go? The rest of Christianity seems utterly confused to me… In my country the Protestant Church remarries people, blesses homosexual “marriages” and has lesbian pastors and even pastors that say they dont believe in God… In the Pentecostal Church I see that each group is saying different things, and the different preachers they invite are saying different things, eg. some are totally anti-catholic and concerned with the end-times and say I and my brethren are headed for the fire, Others call us brrothers, others again preach a prosperity-gospel, some are very conservative and some are liberel. It seems to depend on the pastor (and I do admire these Pentecostals though bcause of their enthusiasm and wonderful testimony). You see there is no unity, and the oppinions of the churches are under heavy influence from the winds of the times. There are no real authorities (and I really dont think God would leave us as sheep without a shepherd), and no knowlege about church history. Even the beloved brother church of ours, the Orthodox, allow divorce now.
So brother, I guess what I think is that the Catholic church is the most trustworthy church today- albeit its problems - , also in any historical perspective (You hear Evangelicals saying the “real church” has been hidden during history due to Catholic persecution, but they have no evidence that this church ever existed nor of any martyrs… except maybe for the ones that came from big heresies).

So when you wrote this:
“I am a Baptist, but I preach non-denomination because where I preach there are many different religions and I say I’m a non-denomination so not to offend any one religion.
So I did not make up my own religion.”
I thought you really must be tired because you sound like you just want to please people instead of saying what you believe to be the truth that God intended…
If you teach something “in order not to offend other religions” I really think you have to step back and wonder if you are serving Christ or yourself. I dont see how you could question my foundation for staying put in my Church then… or at least it seemed ironic.
Anyhow.
Peace to you… I’ll be on the other threads.

Shalom and Peace

So pointing our your own words means that I’m hinting that your wrong to be a Catholic. These were your own words I repeated I made nothing up. You are commenting one what you wrote, not what I wrote. I just pointed out what you said.
Please point out where I said you should not be Catholic.

You are making statements that all protestant religions believe them things you say they do. Yes there are some that do and they are wrong but not all do. You can’t say all that is not a true statement. Its like saying there are bad priests and therefore all the Catholics are like that and believe that. It wouldn’t be true.

Now about me preaching non-denomination. I say what I believe but I also tell them to blieve in what their religion teaches them. I only preach things from the Bible and I research what I’m preaching I even research what the Catholics say on the subject and mention that at well. Now don’t critize my preaching if you have no idea how I preach. By doing so you are assuming without knowledge of me.

Once again point out where I said not to stay in put in your church please.
I know who I am serving its Christ not men. You don’t want me to question your faith but you question mine. Thats like calling the kettle black.

 

[rev_kevin]

well, it ends the discussion…

because if the RCC is the one Christ established on Earth (and it is), whatever the Church teaches can be trusted…

the Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual vrigin…

the Church cannot teach error (St Mt 16:18)

Read post 145. I quoted his words. They are not my words. These words are from a Catholic. I mearly pointed out they were not my words.

 

[GraceDK]

So pointing our your own words means that I’m hinting that your wrong to be a Catholic. These were your own words I repeated I made nothing up. You are commenting one what you wrote, not what I wrote. I just pointed out what you said.
Please point out where I said you should not be Catholic.

You are making statements that all protestant religions believe them things you say they do. Yes there are some that do and they are wrong but not all do. You can’t say all that is not a true statement. Its like saying there are bad priests and therefore all the Catholics are like that and believe that. It wouldn’t be true.

Now about me preaching non-denomination. I say what I believe but I also tell them to blieve in what their religion teaches them. I only preach things from the Bible and I research what I’m preaching I even research what the Catholics say on the subject and mention that at well. Now don’t critize my preaching if you have no idea how I preach. By doing so you are assuming without knowledge of me.

Once again point out where I said not to stay in put in your church please.
I know who I am serving its Christ not men. You don’t want me to question your faith but you question mine. Thats like calling the kettle black.

This discussion is boring me and its a dead end… I dont know how it even started.
It sounds like your church is like a democracy. Then you say: “I only preach things from the Bible and I research what i am preaching”. I think you should research what the bible teaches about apostles and ordination, and about the Eucharist and then decide for what you believe about those things based on what the church has always believed.
Why would you mention in your church what the Catholic teaches… so you can debate against it? So you can agree with it, or say that people can believe whatever? I dont get it… are you not a pastor who is supposed to lead your flock?

When it comes to your faith, I don’t know your life with Jesus. Only He knows that… I only questioned your methods with your congregation because I was puzzled…

Anyway, lets end this dead-end discussion.
.

 

[rev_kevin]

This discussion is boring me and its a dead end… I dont know how it even started.
It sounds like your church is like a democracy. Then you say: “I only preach things from the Bible and I research what i am preaching”. I think you should research what the bible teaches about apostles and ordination, and about the Eucharist and then decide for what you believe about those things based on what the church has always believed.
Why would you mention in your church what the Catholic teaches… so you can debate against it? So you can agree with it, or say that people can believe whatever? I dont get it… are you not a pastor who is supposed to lead your flock?

When it comes to your faith, I don’t know your life with Jesus. Only He knows that… I only questioned your methods with your congregation because I was puzzled…

Anyway, lets end this dead-end discussion.
.

When someone resorts to what you are saying putting down his beliefs and the way he preaches but tells him not to do it to you seems pretty hypocritical. I have never told you to leave your church or that you didn’t believe in the Catholic faith. You can’t handle your own words when brought up to you. Now as far as my flock I do lead them and they like what I do, even the Catholics there. You question my methods but have no idea about my methods. You have never heard me preach who how can you judge my preaching. We do not debate where I preach, church services is not a place to debate. If they have a problem with the way I do things I have told them to let me know but so far they said nothing negative only possitive.

Would you rather tell them not to believe in their faith or what their church has taught them. You don’t understand that I will not tell them to through what they have been taught away. That is what they believe and I respect that.

But I noticed you can not answer my questions. Why? There not hard ones. Could it be I’m right and you can’t admit it.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman I already know that the things you have said are used to defend the dogma.
However, I still maintain the point that you cannot argue on Scripture alone for the immaculate conception, and this is what I find most important here in the debate with REV. Whatever argument you have made has been retrospective from the statement of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

I also wish to highlight the thing you said that I quote above. You are alone with that statement, and it’s not Catholic teaching. The Protestants are our brethren in as much as they confess and believe that Jesus is the Lord and live according to that belief as well as they can according to conscience and knowlege. Saying that people who do not eg. accept the immaculate conception or another dogma are “shutting themselves off from God” is an arrogant and un-catholic remark. Please do read the New Testament and the CCC and realise that Christ alone is our Saviour.

Peace to you and good night.

Sorry, Grace - but you’re wrong.
First of all - I’m not arguing with Scripture alone because NOWHERE does the Bible teach that you must turn to the Scriptures alone. If it does - please show me where.

**You’re also wrong about my comment not being a teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church DOES in fact teach that the fullness of the gospel and the fullness of the faith can ONLY be found in the Church. So, when you reject a teaching oif the Church - you are rejecting Jesus christ himself (Luke 10:16).
**I never said that Protestants weren’t Christians - you keep putting words in my mouth and accusing me pof blasphemy. They are Christians but they don’t have the fullness of faith (CCC. 816-830). **

Protestants are our brethren, albeit, separated but that is by their own will - not by the will of God (John 17).