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

  • Thread starter Thread starter distracted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
elvisman said:
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).
Click to expand...
“When a Protestant – and some Catholics - denies even part of God’s truth, they’re shutting themselves off from God”.
I took this “part of God’s truth” to mean the immaculate conception.
So in your oppinion people that dont believe in the immaculate conception (that is, the whole protestant/evangelical part of Christs Body) are shutting themselves off from God.
This is what I disagree with and dont think its at all in line with Catholic teaching.
If I have misunderstood you I am only grateful.

By the way, I never said that I believe in the Sola Scriptura principle. You over-assume things. I merely said what I held all along, that the immaculate conception cannot be explicitly deduced from Sacred Scripture.

Peace
 
rev_kevin said:
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.
Click to expand...
On page ten, when I had told you I had a problem with the Immaculate Conception or at least the need for its pronounciation, you wrote:

“You accept something even though you really find this doctrine very hard to swollow. At least I had the good sence to get out of something when I didn’t believe in it anymore. But you choose to stay knowing you don’t agree with what the Catholic doctrine says. A Catholic is to agree with all doctrine or they are going against the church and God.”

I saw and still see this as an exaggeated response on your part. Especially the parts I have underlined.
You may mean that I cannot answer your questions… well, I think I just did. The reason I hesitated is that I dont have time to look through many pages of old posts because you have a poor memory about the things you have written.

As for your methods, you say that you present your flock with different teachings, also the ones from the Catholic Church on some matters, and you said you preach “non-denominational” because your flock comes from different backgrounds so you dont wanna preach in the baptist way to them…
All this I find a bit odd. Also I find it odd that you say even the Catholics in your congregation like your preaching. Thats all very well if you mean they are guests that come to your church. If they are Catholics that have left the Catholic church you ought to write that in all clarity.
I have by the way been at many Evangelical services also since I became Catholic, and I could appreciate the preaching, though there were things in it that were not correct from a Catholic point of view.

At any rate, I think we are finished. I think you should become more clear when you write. Apparently so should I.
I dont think the immaculate conception is very important in my spiritual life with Christ. Neither is does my salvation depend on accepting this teaching.
So I choose to leave the conversation.

Good day to you.
 
GraceDK said:
On page ten, when I had told you I had a problem with the Immaculate Conception or at least the need for its pronounciation, you wrote:

“You accept something even though you really find this doctrine very hard to swollow. At least I had the good sence to get out of something when I didn’t believe in it anymore. But you choose to stay knowing you don’t agree with what the Catholic doctrine says. A Catholic is to agree with all doctrine or they are going against the church and God.”

I saw and still see this as an exaggeated response on your part. Especially the parts I have underlined.
You may mean that I cannot answer your questions… well, I think I just did. The reason I hesitated is that I dont have time to look through many pages of old posts because you have a poor memory about the things you have written.

As for your methods, you say that you present your flock with different teachings, also the ones from the Catholic Church on some matters, and you said you preach “non-denominational” because your flock comes from different backgrounds so you dont wanna preach in the baptist way to them…
All this I find a bit odd. Also I find it odd that you say even the Catholics in your congregation like your preaching. Thats all very well if you mean they are guests that come to your church. If they are Catholics that have left the Catholic church you ought to write that in all clarity.
I have by the way been at many Evangelical services also since I became Catholic, and I could appreciate the preaching, though there were things in it that were not correct from a Catholic point of view.

At any rate, I think we are finished. I think you should become more clear when you write. Apparently so should I.
I dont think the immaculate conception is very important in my spiritual life with Christ. Neither is does my salvation depend on accepting this teaching.
So I choose to leave the conversation.

Good day to you.
Click to expand...
I never meant you should leave I stated that I did because I didn’t believe in the teachings. But you can choose to do what you want. By I had the good sence to leave. I’m not going to stay in something I don’t bellieve in. And according to Catholics here if you don’t believe all what the church teaches then you are going against the church.

As for as my flock as yo call them. They are senoir citizens in nursing homes. The don’t get out to go to Church so I bring it to them. They are by no means guests it their home and I go to them. They have not left the Catholic faith its just me and a couple of other ministers got to them. I’m sure if a priest would go there they would go to that service, but unfortunaly no priest do in the town I live in, so they come and be a part of my services. At least they and worship God. If I say anything they disagree with about the Catholic faith believe me they will be the first to let me know strongly.

No I do agree with you last statement.
 
GraceDK said:
“When a Protestant – and some Catholics - denies even part of God’s truth, they’re shutting themselves off from God”.
I took this “part of God’s truth” to mean the immaculate conception.
So in your oppinion people that dont believe in the immaculate conception (that is, the whole protestant/evangelical part of Christs Body) are shutting themselves off from God.
This is what I disagree with and dont think its at all in line with Catholic teaching.
If I have misunderstood you I am only grateful.

By the way, I never said that I believe in the Sola Scriptura principle. You over-assume things. I merely said what I held all along, that the immaculate conception cannot be explicitly deduced from Sacred Scripture.

Peace
Click to expand...
Grace - I’m not trying to fight with you, but you’re last line is very telling.

You claim that you don’t hold to Cola Scriptura, but there you go again stating that because the Immaculate conception is not explicitly taught in Scripture - you have a problem with it. This is a basic tenet of Sola Scriptura.

**Paul told Timothy in 1 Tim. 3:15 that the Church was the pillar and foundation of truth - NOT Scripture. Scripture IS the written word of God and is 100% true - but the word of God is not limited to Scripture alone. **2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, and 2 Tim. 12:14 ALL stress the importance of Sacred Tradition.

**NOWHERE does the Bible say that things must be explicitly taught in Scripture but it DOES say that we must believe what we are TAUGHT by the Church. When I said that those who disagree with the Church’s teachings in faith and morals are shutting themselves off from God - that includes the Immaculate Conception. As a Catholic - your are required to believe in dogmatice decrees of the Church. **
Those who reject Church dogmas are Protestants.
 
elvisman said:
Grace - I’m not trying to fight with you, but you’re last line is very telling.

You claim that you don’t hold to Cola Scriptura, but there you go again stating that because the Immaculate conception is not explicitly taught in Scripture - you have a problem with it. This is a basic tenet of Sola Scriptura.
Guilty as charged:) I do put the Immaculate Conception into a certain area of my mind, since its not taught in Scripture. It continues to strike me as odd that such a mighty deed of God should not be found, among the apostles, to be worthy to be related in Scripture. I can only assume that the apostles were not aware of the Virgin Marys immaculate conception.
However, I did not say that I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, just that I continue to have lack of comprehension about it and have been struggling with it. Also that I dont find it pertaining to my salvation, whether I believe it or not. I am sure you admit that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, not in doctrines about His mother.

God has taught me a great deal of things about the Virgin Mary that I did not know when I was protestant. Eg, that she is indeed queen of heaven. I believe that.
I also know beyond doubt that she was ever-virgin (not because non-virginity is intrinsically impure in any way, or would not have been worthy of her, but because she boar the Lord and only Him… God by the way confirmed that for me … through Scripture.)
I am then sure He will teach me whatever He wishes to when it comes to His beloved Mother who gave and gives Him still so much joy.

I dont have anything more to say on this topic.

Peace.
Click to expand...
 
Indyann said:
You are impossible to communicate with. You only came on this site to agitate.

You didn’t come to learn because you think you already know all there is to know about the Catholic faith.

I’m done!
Click to expand...
that was basically my thought…
 
rev_kevin said:
Yes I am a Baptist.

e.
Click to expand...
***so you choose a church (so called) that started in … waht the 17th century (at best)… i am thinking the 1800s… but not sure …

one thing i am sure of is that the RCC started at Pentecost when the apostles were filled w/ the Holy Spirit… and became the first bishops (and pope) of the Church***
 
GraceDK said:
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.
ace.
Click to expand...
i think it is a beautiful doctrine… and is necessary because it shows God’s holiness… He wanted an absolutely holy vessel to carry the Word Incarnate in… a new ark of the Covenent… Remember what happened i nthe OT when pepole touched the ark imporperly??? Uzzah died… and there are others… .can’t recall their names but others who were chastised severely for mishanlding the ark…

Mary has a role that no other saint has…

Jesus is for salvation…

Mary is for purity (and other things…) ***In Revelation it says that the devil HATES “the woman” and persecutes her… ***
 
rev_kevin said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m :confused: this answer you give does not fit with the original post of mine… :confused

the church Christ established on Earth CANNOT teach error… God does not allow it…

one time a pope was going to promote a heretical version of the Bible … .the Cardinals and bishops were against it but he wouldn’t listen… He was fairly young and yet he died of some strange disease… i wish i could recall what year that was but it happened…

then one time this queen wanted her nephew to become pope so he could teach a heretical belief of hers… He was going to do that exactly as she wanted… yet when he became pope, he did a 180 and said to her that he would NOT teach that heresy…

She persecuted him and drove him into exile… but he would NOT back down…

God protects his Church on Earth from teaching error…
 
words, words and more words… :rolleyes:

it boils down to this:

Did God establish, through Christ, ONE Church on Earth and if so, which one is it??

is it the one that started from the time of the Ascension and Pentecost, the one called “Catholic” – called Catholic AT LEAST as early as 107 AD (St Ignatious’ writngs)…

or the one that started with the split… the one Luther caused… in 1521? or the ones that came after him?

ALL Protestant “churches” began AFTER Luther… after the 16th century…

so are you (Rev K, etc) saying that there was no real Church before Luther??? Oh, that’s right, there WAS but it went into apostacy…

so that means Jesus lied to us…(??) :eek: He told us He would protect his Church and that the*** very gates of Hell would NOT prevail against HIs Church (St Mt 16:18)*** … yet somehow He was unable to accomplish that… or maybe – What?? – he was too lazy??? or what??? :rolleyes:

i mean, just waht do you really believe about the great apostasy that was supposed to have occurred some time in history as Protestants believe??? Either the Church apostasized or it didn’t…

if it didn’t, Jesus kept his Promise…

if it did… uh…

***That ONE Church did not and never can apostatize… God doesn’t establish fallible Churches… ***
 
distracted said:
i think it is a beautiful doctrine… and is necessary because it shows God’s holiness… He wanted an absolutely holy vessel to carry the Word Incarnate in… a new ark of the Covenent… Remember what happened i nthe OT when pepole touched the ark imporperly??? Uzzah died… and there are others… .can’t recall their names but others who were chastised severely for mishanlding the ark…

Mary has a role that no other saint has…

Jesus is for salvation…

Mary is for purity (and other things…) ***In Revelation it says that the devil HATES “the woman” and persecutes her… ***
Click to expand...
Mary is for purity… nooo… there is no purity outside salvation, and no purity outside of God. You cannot divide the gifts and qualities of God and give them to creatures. Mary is a creature.
God sets the necessity… not man nor church.
The devil hates the woman because she bears the saviour and because she is a soul that is dear to our Lord. She is not saviour, but she is given the privilege of carrying Him into the world, and being prepared for that grace.
All the glory to God for that.
 
distracted said:
I’m :confused: this answer you give does not fit with the original post of mine… :confused

the church Christ established on Earth CANNOT teach error… God does not allow it…

one time a pope was going to promote a heretical version of the Bible … .the Cardinals and bishops were against it but he wouldn’t listen… He was fairly young and yet he died of some strange disease… i wish i could recall what year that was but it happened…

then one time this queen wanted her nephew to become pope so he could teach a heretical belief of hers… He was going to do that exactly as she wanted… yet when he became pope, he did a 180 and said to her that he would NOT teach that heresy…

She persecuted him and drove him into exile… but he would NOT back down…

God protects his Church on Earth from teaching error…
Click to expand...
I was pointing out the PS part of your post.
 
GraceDK said:
Mary is for purity… nooo… there is no purity outside salvation, and no purity outside of God. You cannot divide the gifts and qualities of God and give them to creatures. Mary is a creature.
God sets the necessity… not man nor church.
The devil hates the woman because she bears the saviour and because she is a soul that is dear to our Lord. She is not saviour, but she is given the privilege of carrying Him into the world, and being prepared for that grace.
All the glory to God for that.
Click to expand...
i guess some people just like to argue…
 
distracted said:
and the Church (the Roman Catholic Church— there is only ONE Church)

is Jesus…

as one saint said** the** Church IS Christ…
Click to expand...
Yes Jesus is. Christ is the church and Jesus is the head. Who is Christ, Jesus.
 
GraceDK said:
Guilty as charged:) I do put the Immaculate Conception into a certain area of my mind, since its not taught in Scripture. It continues to strike me as odd that such a mighty deed of God should not be found, among the apostles, to be worthy to be related in Scripture. I can only assume that the apostles were not aware of the Virgin Marys immaculate conception.
However, I did not say that I do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, just that I continue to have lack of comprehension about it and have been struggling with it. Also that I dont find it pertaining to my salvation, whether I believe it or not. I am sure you admit that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, not in doctrines about His mother.

God has taught me a great deal of things about the Virgin Mary that I did not know when I was protestant. Eg, that she is indeed queen of heaven. I believe that.
I also know beyond doubt that she was ever-virgin (not because non-virginity is intrinsically impure in any way, or would not have been worthy of her, but because she boar the Lord and only Him… God by the way confirmed that for me … through Scripture.)
I am then sure He will teach me whatever He wishes to when it comes to His beloved Mother who gave and gives Him still so much joy.

I dont have anything more to say on this topic.

Peace.
Click to expand...
**I’m sorry to hear that you still cling to sola Scriptura.
I’m also curious about why you believe in Mary’s queenship and her perpetual virginity since they aren’t explicitly taught in Scripture - though they ARE implicitly taught.

**Again - I wasn’**t trying to fight with you - just curious about why you believe the way you do.
I also don’t understand why you won’t talk about it anymore on this thread - being that our conversation IS the topic of this thread.

If your refusal is based on a simple flat rejection of doctrine based only on explicit vs. implicit teaching - your belief system is rather flawed because you believe in other Marian Dogmas that share the same “shortcoming”.

Thoughts?
 
To say that Mary was saved BEFORE her conception implies a pre-existence for Mary’s soul which the Catholic Church does not teach (that’s an LDS thing).
Her immaculate conception is hard to “prove” by scripture…the best hint being that the Angel said Mary was FULL OF GRACE. I accept the doctrine of the Church in this matter, but to imply that she was saved before her conception, again, implies she was pre-existent…which I and all good Catholics reject. That the merits of the cross of Christ flow backward and forward in time should surprise no one. The merits of Christ’s cross were applied to Mary at the moment of her conception…not before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top