second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Peter_J]

So, now it’s the Roman Catholic position that the Bible is not the word of God?

Ah there it is. I’m reminded of the clergyman in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters who would ‘say “The teaching of the Church is” when he really means “I’m almost sure I read recently in Maritain or someone of that sort”.’ (Granted, of course, that Lewis was Anglican, not Roman Catholic. But you get the idea.)

My signature used to say “Catholicism ≠ catholic.com”. (Maybe I need to bring that back. )

 

[Kliska]

Speaking as an Eastern Catholic, much obliged to you. :tiphat:

hahaha, I can do that.

 

[Peter_J]

Are you saying that the Bible isn’t the word of God?

You may or may not care about this, but I’m reminded of how Mother Angelica would have a cover on her bible with the words “Word of God”.

P.S. Sorry, I meant to say “The position of the Church is that Mother Angelica had a cover on her bible with the words “Word of God”.”

 

[Kliska]

You may or may not care about this, but I’m reminded of how Mother Angelica would have a cover on her bible with the words “Word of God”.

P.S. Sorry, I meant to say “The position of the Church is that Mother Angelica had a cover on her bible with the words “Word of God”.”

I miss her and pray for her often.

 

[PRmerger]

I could start writing RCC/ECC if that would be better.

“CC” is probably easier.

The use of RCC is for clarity’s sake since many protestants believe they are indeed a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

Invoking St. Augustine here:

I wonder where you would point a stranger who came to your town and asked, “Where is the nearest Catholic church?”

If you pointed him to any Protestant church, and coyly said, “Well, this church claims to be catholic–is that what you were looking for?”…no one would blame him for giving you this look:

 

[PRmerger]

I could start writing RCC/ECC if that would be better.

Speaking as an Eastern Catholic, much obliged to you. :tiphat:

And there you go.

Exactly one of the reasons why I think it’s important to use CC rather than RCC–so our eastern brethren are not excluded.

Not to mention, using RCC suggests a lack of knowledge regarding Catholicism which I like to correct, so this ignorance is not furthered. (Note to my dear Kliska: this is not a personal reference to you having a lack of knowledge. It is only a reference to lurkers who may read your posts and assume that RCC is the correct nomenclature.)

 

[PRmerger]

Source for a protestant that doesn’t believe what Gabriel declared to Mary?

I said that some of you believe in grace.

Some don’t.

examineiglesianicristo.com/

Note that “grace” is not mentioned once as a tenet of their beliefs.

And please also note that, according to your paradigm, they are certainly free to read the Scriptures independently and come to their own (weird, bizarre) conclusions, apart from the authority of the Tradition which gave you these Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

Precisely part of the problem of disunity.

I don’t understand what you are saying here, Kliska.

Is it your belief that Christians are free to dissent, or are they not?

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Kliska
I could start writing RCC/ECC if that would be better.

Although “C” would be easier still.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, Mary truly had free will; she had the ability to say no. To deny that is to rob Mary of her rightful place as a champion of faith

This is very Catholic of you to say!

 

[Peter_J]

I miss her and pray for her often.

(Care to elaborate?)

 

[PRmerger]

Although “C” would be easier still.

Fair enough.

 

[PJM]

=GaryTaylor;11519058]One word greek translation, and unique.

oocities.org/athens/Atrium/8410/kecharitomene.html

Gary the bible translation you’re using has been modernozed.

Both the Vulgate and the Douay translate verse 28 as HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE

Douay-Rheims (RHE)
26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

The Latin Vulgate (VUL)
26 in mense autem sexto missus est angelus Gabrihel a Deo in civitatem Galilaeae cui nomen Nazareth 27 ad virginem desponsatam viro cui nomen erat Ioseph de domo David et nomen virginis Maria 28 et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus 29 quae cum vidisset turbata est in sermone eius et cogitabat qualis esset ista salutation 30 et ait angelus ei ne timeas Maria invenisti enim gratiam apud Deum”

Both of these bibles predate whatever you’re using:thumbsup:

 

[GaryTaylor]

Interesting, I’ve never actually heard it put this way before. So, the baptism that she was baptized with, according the RCC wasn’t an actual water baptism

According to my fallible thinking the Holy Spirit. The Church form wasn’t instituted yet.

CCC- By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Both of these bibles predate whatever you’re using:thumbsup:

Thank you

 

[pocohombre]

]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?

" Let us not suppose that because God can that He did", somebody else said this,and followed with stick to scriptures for clarity on a matter. Does not God have the power to enter an ordinary Jewish virgin from the seed of David, from the seed of Eve ? Are you saying He could not except she be “Immaculate” ? Did He need a perfect Mother ? How could He have been tempted in all things, like you and I, with a perfect mother ? Are you not challenged (tempted), when your mother errs toward you ? He entered me, and does He not all brethren ? (and we still sin, yet are perfect in Him). Face it . A holy, pure God entered a sinful world, and was not “touched” or defiled by it but moved to save it. Further, it is an affront to God’s method of purification, justification, grace that is found both in OT and NT, to say none were effectual and Mary needed special dispensation. It is like saying today baptism, communion, confession, confirmation are not effectual and for anything special to happen between you and God, for Him to physically touch you, you need something else above all your religious rites, that they were not enough. Many of the Jewish rites foreshadow ours, and “immaculate” need is contrary. Not surprising ,the idea gained momentum as we further separated from our roots, and even began to have friction with them.

 

[PRmerger]

Further, it is an affront to God’s method of purification, justification, grace that is found both in OT and NT, to say none were effectual and Mary needed special dispensation.

It is not Catholic teaching to say that Mary “needed” special dispensation.

It is Catholic teaching to say that it was fitting that Mary be a pure and sinless vessel to contain Him Who the World Could Not Contain.

Just like the Ark of the Covenant, which contained The Divine Word, was pure and holy, so, too, is the new vessel pure and holy.

 

[PJM]

=Novocastrian;11519318]Don’t be silly. You’re making a huge leap here, which is to assume that Mary’s being full of grace is tied to her conception. There is nothing in your argument that necessarily applies to anything before the moment that Gabriel greets Our Lady.

If you’re going to try to set out semi-formal arguments, at least be consistent and clear.

Yes OF COURSE IT IS and further, it HAD to [absolutely] BE SO

WHY?

Simply put:

[emphasis not shouting here]
BECAUSE GOD IS PERFECT
BECAUSE GOD HAS TO CHOICE BUT TO REMAIN PERFECT
THE MOTHER OF GOD TOO HAD TO BE “PERFECT”

1st. MADE perfect through the MERITS of Her Son [time does not exist for God: everything is “NOW.”

2nd. Then Mary ON HER OWN FREEWILL HAD TO [choose never-ever] NOT TO SIN. WHICH She accomplished through accepting and correctly applying sufficient grace for her to accomplish this necessary task.

3td. God simply could not [IMPOSSIBLE] permit Himself to become Incarnate from any creator that was not PERFECT.

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[PRmerger]

Yes OF COURSE IT IS and further, it HAD to [absolutely] BE SO

WHY?

Simply put:

[emphasis not shouting here]
BECAUSE GOD IS PERFECT
BECAUSE GOD HAS TO CHOICE BUT TO REMAIN PERFECT
THE MOTHER OF GOD TOO HAD TO BE “PERFECT”

God Bless you!
Patrick

No, Patrick.

This is not correct.

It was not necessary for Mary to be perfect.

Rather, it was FITTING that she was.

 

[pocohombre]

It is not Catholic teaching to say that Mary “needed” special dispensation.

It is Catholic teaching to say that it was fitting that Mary be a pure and sinless vessel to contain Him Who the World Could Not Contain.

Just like the Ark of the Covenant, which contained The Divine Word, was pure and holy, so, too, is the new vessel pure and holy.

Still all elements of a fallen world .There was a method of sanctification and purification in the OT, as the Ark was pure and holy as you say. So to with Mary, quite fitting . Quite pure and holy, in OT sense. The "fitting’ might be human sentiment, uneeded piety.