second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Protestor]

what an interesting perspective.

nothing is gained from following the teachings of the RCC, i.e. the doctrine of the immaculate conception, the Real Presence, the Holy Trinity, the forgiveness of sins, etc., etc., etc.

it becomes a little bizarre when the person making such a comment is pretty much completely unaware of the fullness of the teachings of the RCC.

who could not pull some concept out of context and make irrational claims about the concept?

I am so far away from using “reductio ad absurdum”. You are the one who is taking what I say and going to it’s furthest possible extant. I am talking about IC alone. Just because you guys are wrong about a few things does not mean you are wrong about everything. Even a broken watch is right twice a day. I probably know more about catholic “fullness” then most of the protestants I know. Most of my friends and family think i am crazy for trying to understand you guys so much that includes my catholic friends. One of my catholic friends called me a closet catholic, one former catholic asked me how she was supposed to receive communion while at her Gma’s church because she forgot.

 

[Novocastrian]

i must have missed it.

where exactly in sacred scripture and Church history is the support for believing that the Blessed Virgin Mary was NOT preserved from original sin from the moment of her conception?

there seem to be some people who strongly reject that teaching.

exactly what support from scripture and history do they provide to justify their rejection?

It’s really facile to demand negative proof, as if that wins an argument. I’d be very interested in hearing you demonstrate from Scripture and Church history the belief that Mary’s favourite colour was orange. Just because that can’t be proved is no good reason to require everyone to believe it. You do your own side a disservice by offering arguments like this.

 

[Kliska]

If one doctrine is false when it was supposed to be infallibly true your system crumbles. You finally are starting to understand why this is so hard for me.

This. One wrong teaching or doctrine is all it takes.

 

[Protestor]

No, Protestor.

No document presented by the Church, save for the Bible Alone, is considered to “have the same inspiration as the bible.”

You seem to be confusing “infallible” with “inspired”.

Not the same thing.

At all.

Then why is it infallible and why is it described with the same words as scripture in Trent?

I wish I could just talk to you and Randy

 

[Protestor]

by whose authority do protestants reject the teachings of the RCC?

God it is God who is taking back the authority the church never had but wants to claim for itself. He is just happening to speak through all us who protest. Do not start a side subject from this it is futile

 

[eddie_too]

there is evidence in both scripture and history for the belief that Mary was preserved from original sin from the moment of her conception.

i am not asking anyone to prove a negative. i am asking them to prove their assertion that Mary was subject to original sin.

that is what some assert.

absent proof that Mary was subject to original sin, it is disingenuous to disregard the evidence that supports the doctrine that she was NOT subject to original sin.

it is not unreasonable to believe that God wanted His mother to be perfectly holy from the first moment of her conception. who would doubt whether or not God had the power to preserve Mary from original sin?

so, God had the power. God chose to keep His mother immaculate.

why dispute it? is there something in scripture or history that causes people to question whether God’s mother was free from sin?

 

[eddie_too]

some say Mary sinned.

i say to them, prove it.

and, if you cannot prove it, i question why you would be determined to characterize the Mother of God as being a sinner?

 

[bubbawanda]

It seems clear that
[1] God did start a New religion [set of faith beliefs]

[2} did found a new church [structure and organization]

Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 16:18-19
John 17:14-20
Mk. 16: 14-15
Mt. 28:16-20 are evidence of this.

SO DEAR FRIENDS MY QUESTION IS:

Did Christ give to the Apostles the Power and Authority to

[1] Teach this new faith FULLY and CORRECTLY?

[2] Give [transfer] the necesary Powers and Authority to them?

God Bless you!
Patrick

To my imperfect understanding this is not belief. Its actual history and the more we find archaeological evidence, the more that debate is settled. I figure the other denoms are just another interpretation and means to praise God.
I truly believe in freedom of religion and I believe that freedom only produces more enthusiastic parishioners and makes their church the vital force for good.
Frankly not believing the veracity of this is kinda like not believing in clogged Los Angeles freeways. Long as you stay away you’re fine, but if you wind up there, better open your eyes and pay attention!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

One of my catholic friends called me a closet catholic

LOL

He might be a cafeteria Catholic?

j/k

 

[Protestor]

there is evidence in both scripture and history for the belief that Mary was preserved from original sin from the moment of her conception.
I am asking them to prove their assertion that Mary was subject to original sin.

absent proof that Mary was subject to original sin, it is disingenuous to disregard the evidence that supports the doctrine that she was NOT subject to original sin.

it is not unreasonable to believe that God wanted His mother to be perfectly holy from the first moment of her conception. who would doubt whether or not God had the power to preserve Mary from original sin?

so, God had the power. God chose to keep His mother immaculate.

why dispute it? is there something in scripture or history that causes people to question whether God’s mother was free from sin?

This proof will sound very charming. Rom 3 I could have sworn the RCC wants this to mean that all but Mary have O.S. . Nowhere in the chapter does it say she is exempt. 22-25 can imply that Jesus sinless

 

[PRmerger]

This. One wrong teaching or doctrine is all it takes.

On this, we are agreed!

(With the caveat that it was claimed to be infallible, but it turns out it was in error.)

 

[PRmerger]

Then why is it infallible

Because it was divinely revealed and without error.

and why is it described with the same words as scripture in Trent?

Why does “the same words as Scripture” turn out to mean, “Therefore, Catholics believe that all Magisterial pronouncements have the same level of inspiration as Scripture”?

I wish I could just talk to you and Randy

:curtsey:

 

[Kliska]

One of the biggest factors is how the transmission of Adam’s original sin is thought to occur. One theory; if it is through Adam that the sin is passed, it is the seed of the male that “is the problem.” Jesus is the only human (other than Adam) that was not the seed of a man. That is why the emphasis was put on the fact He would be seed of the Woman, not the man. The rest of us, even women, inherit Adam’s sin because we are the seed of Adam.

 

[PRmerger]

No, Protestor.

No document presented by the Church, save for the Bible Alone, is considered to “have the same inspiration as the bible.”

You seem to be confusing “infallible” with “inspired”.

Not the same thing.

At all.

From apologist Jimmy Akin (bold mine):

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible alone is the inspired word of God, where inspired refers to the action of the Holy Spirit in guiding the human authors to write what God wanted written, in the precise way he wanted it written. Sacred Tradition, though also the word of God, does not come to us in an inspired (or “God-breathed”) form (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16). Theologians talk about sacred Tradition being “assisted” by the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, to be sure, as they do the teaching ministry or magisterium of the Church. But only Scripture has God as its primary author and in that sense only Scripture is divinely inspired

 

[PRmerger]

This proof will sound very charming. Rom 3 I could have sworn the RCC wants this to mean that all but Mary have O.S. . Nowhere in the chapter does it say she is exempt. 22-25 can imply that Jesus sinless

So “all” doesn’t necessarily mean “all”, then, right?

And I can offer you several other examples in Scripture where “all” doesn’t mean “every single human being”.

Would you like me to show you these examples?

 

[GaryTaylor]

This. One wrong teaching or doctrine is all it takes.

But astonishing as it is, I cannot find it. You? And take my word here, I looked and hard.

 

[Protestor]

So “all” doesn’t necessarily mean “all”, then, right?

And I can offer you several other examples in Scripture where “all” doesn’t mean “every single human being”.

Would you like me to show you these examples?

Please do not quote Aquinas on this subject(for examples)

As to “all” yes it means all. God is obviously not included in this statement. Yes all humans was Jesus just a human no. So does this apply to him no.

 

[Protestor]

But astonishing as it is, I cannot find it. You? And take my word here, I looked and hard.

We are already talking about one.

 

[GaryTaylor]

We are already talking about one.

We’re done. You wanted to talk to PR and Randy remember? You need to come here daily and chat with us. I thought you knew scripture till I read PRs quote. We shall learn together than:thumbsup:

 

[Protestor]

We’re done. You wanted to talk to PR and Randy remember? You need to come here daily and chat with us. I thought you knew scripture till I read PRs quote. We shall learn together than:thumbsup:

Ill be back tm. I wish I knew scripture as well as I should.

May you bless God.