Sinless Mary

[wmscott]

What I find amusing with Leeann’s and justasking4’s arguments is that the sinless state of the Blessed Mother, her Immaculate Conception and Assumption was never, I repeat never an issue for over 1500 years. Moreover, it was not until Martin Luther, later in life when he was old a bitter towards the Catholic Church that it even became an issue. At first, he had no issue with the Blessed Mother. There was never at any time in history of Christianity issues surrounding the Blessed Mother until later in the reformation. It is a relatively new phenomenon when you look back over 2000 years of history. You get the Bible only literalists, those who only have limited information, and by the way, the Bible is a CC product, coupled with the fact they have no central teaching authority, you get an infinite amount of personal misinterpretations. As with Leeann’s and justasking4’s, you have explained the concepts to them, I do not know how many ways, and they still do not get it. In a nutshell, they have lost the bubble regarding Sacred Tradition and do not understand that it is also the Word of God just as Sacred Scripture is. You may be getting to the point that you are going to start covering old ground. God bless you for keeping the dialog open, hopefully you will plant a seed of reason, if not with Leeann and justasking4, then maybe with others. Keep up the good work.

 

[Thing]

Where does the Catholic church teach that John the Baptist chose not to sin or did not sin?

I was wondering what exactly justification and sanctification meant to you?

 

[Good_Fella]

What I find amusing with Leeann’s and justasking4’s arguments is that the sinless state of the Blessed Mother, her Immaculate Conception and Assumption was never, I repeat never an issue for over 1500 years. Moreover, it was not until Martin Luther, later in life when he was old a bitter towards the Catholic Church that it even became an issue. At first, he had no issue with the Blessed Mother. There was never at any time in history of Christianity issues surrounding the Blessed Mother until later in the reformation. It is a relatively new phenomenon when you look back over 2000 years of history. You get the Bible only literalists, those who only have limited information, and by the way, the Bible is a CC product, coupled with the fact they have no central teaching authority, you get an infinite amount of personal misinterpretations. As with Leeann’s and justasking4’s, you have explained the concepts to them, I do not know how many ways, and they still do not get it. In a nutshell, they have lost the bubble regarding Sacred Tradition and do not understand that it is also the Word of God just as Sacred Scripture is. You may be getting to the point that you are going to start covering old ground. God bless you for keeping the dialog open, hopefully you will plant a seed of reason, if not with Leeann and justasking4, then maybe with others. Keep up the good work.

The irony is that mainstream Protestants will tell us that the Mormons, Jehova Witness, Seventh Day Adventists, and Unitarians are not true Christians, though these groups exist along the same principle of Sola Scriptura.

PAX:harp:

 

[Good_Fella]

I was wondering what exactly justification and sanctification meant to you?

The problem with JA4 is he doesn’t tell us what he exactly means. He just makes abstract assertions and generalizations without any support behind what he says. His monotonous catch phrases are “not in the scriptures” and “speculations of men”. If anyone could win the Nobel Prize for saying something without saying anything, it would be JA4 & Co.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman

Stop whining - it’s not becoming.

The fact of the matter is - I have answered your questions - you simply did not like my answers…but that’s okay…you’re entitled…just as I am entitled (*aren’t I ???)…*or is this a place for you to simply spout off and if people don’t agree you start posting statements “as facts” - as to what they believe - how they’ve come to their conclusions - and begin *labelling *them as if somehow that adds credence to your insight.

If you want “substantial” and “serious” responses to your questions…or “statements”, consider re-reading some of your *own *posts with as clear and honest an eye as you’ve made claim to mine.

If you dish it out…you get it back sometimes…that’s what happens, it’s not very nice or comfortable being on the receiving end - is it? - but there you have it…so either adjust your own thermostat a bit…or take it like a man!

**Another non-answer - what a surprise. **
You’re on a roll, sister!

 

[Leeann]

Original Quotes by Good Fella
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He (She) will strike at your head, while you strike at his (her) heel.”
Genesis 3, 15

Then Uzziah said to her: “Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the chief of our enemies.”
Judith 13, 18-19

“Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Luke 1, 42

Response by Leeann
Originally Posted by Leeann
Now that is reeeaallly trying to stretch it a bit Goodfella……that quotation from Luke is in reference to what Elizabeth said to Mary when she greeted her and as prompted by the Holy Spirit….the reference to Judith as in comparison to Mary however…only points out more clearly that Mary and Judith were both just women, unless of course you would place Judith on the same level as Mary, by the words describing her in the quotation you offered above???

---

"Many are the women of proven worth, but you have excelled them all.
Proverbs 31, 29

Elizabeth declares both Mary and her Divine offspring blessed as Uzziah blesses both Judith and God. Judith is blessed for having saved Israel by cutting off the head of the Assyrian general Holofermes with God’s guidance. Mary is blessed for having saved mankind from eternal destruction by crushing the head of the serpent underfoot with her ‘Fiat’ which brought our Redeemer into the world. (so by this reasoning, it is Mary’s “yes” that has saved mankind – not the blood of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross?”)Thus Elizabeth will also declare: “Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.” (so basically both Judith and Mary were blessed for their faith and belief in God )The fruit of Mary’s faith is her Divine offspring whose Passion and Death were victorious over the serpent and his seed: sin and death. When Luke wrote 1:42, he had the Protoevangelium and the Jewish servant and handmaid Judith in mind. (This is not clearly indicated here, as it is in his writings or recording style in other chapters when he is siting references from the prophets or Jewish scriptures, he clearly puts down “as it was written” or “as the prohphets said”. Why wouldn’t he do the same here? Either Luke didn’t really accept the book of Judith to be in the same league as the other scriptures – or – Luke didn’t feel the need to clearly define anything with regards to Mary, as it simply wasn’t important enough to do so.)

 

[Leeann]

(continued for Good Fella)

The evangelist perceived the heroine as a prefigurement of Mary, a type of Woman of Promise, the New Eve, who runs current throughout the Old Testament among the Jewish heroines.

In the original Hebrew text we have the neuter epicene personal pronoun in Genesis 3:15. With a dual subject the woman is indicated in the prophecy together with her offspring: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring.” ." (When you read all of the verses, perhaps the meaning of the word “woman” takes on a new perspective especially from the Duoay Rheims edition – where the Latin translation is used to actually “change” the “sense” of the verse, in such a way to now accommodate the “level” of Mary’s participation. More importantly – while a general parallel can and is obviously drawn from these verses between Mary and Eve – when one reads “the woman” here, to whom God is actually addressing, it is evident that it is still EVE He is talking too here. If people can take one verse (15) and suddenly just use that one verse as a necessary crutch for a theology they have propagated over the years – why can they not see or understand that what God was saying to “the woman” EVE and her seed (generations of mankind to come) that they too would have enmity with the serpent (Satan) and his seed? Hasn’t this been true for Christians from the very beginning and is still true today?

Douay Rheims bible
13 And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat. 14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
Explanation Douay Rheims version for verse 15: (red is theirs)15 “She shall crush”… Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.
16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

Both the woman and the child will crush the head of the serpent while he waits at their heels. (again not so, except in the Duoay Rheims bible version, even other Catholic bibles don’t translate it this way.) And the woman is Mary, since it is “her” seed, not the seed of a man. (if you accept that “the woman” in this one particular verse is Mary and not EVE, what about the other verses just prior and after…is that “woman” God is talking too, not also Mary?) It was God who destroyed Holofermes and the Assyrians, but Judith played a vital role as God’s chosen handmaid in the general’s death by doing the actual slaying with the use of a sword. The quickest and most efficient way to kill a snake is to cut off its head.

 

[Good_Fella]

Original Quotes by Good Fella
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He (She) will strike at your head, while you strike at his (her) heel.”
Genesis 3, 15

Then Uzziah said to her: “Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the chief of our enemies.”
Judith 13, 18-19

“Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Luke 1, 42

Response by Leeann
Originally Posted by Leeann
Now that is reeeaallly trying to stretch it a bit Goodfella……that quotation from Luke is in reference to what Elizabeth said to Mary when she greeted her and as prompted by the Holy Spirit….the reference to Judith as in comparison to Mary however…only points out more clearly that Mary and Judith were both just women, unless of course you would place Judith on the same level as Mary, by the words describing her in the quotation you offered above???

---

"Many are the women of proven worth, but you have excelled them all.
Proverbs 31, 29

Elizabeth declares both Mary and her Divine offspring blessed as Uzziah blesses both Judith and God. Judith is blessed for having saved Israel by cutting off the head of the Assyrian general Holofermes with God’s guidance. Mary is blessed for having saved mankind from eternal destruction by crushing the head of the serpent underfoot with her ‘Fiat’ which brought our Redeemer into the world. (so by this reasoning, it is Mary’s “yes” that has saved mankind – not the blood of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross?”)Thus Elizabeth will also declare: “Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.” (so basically both Judith and Mary were blessed for their faith and belief in God )The fruit of Mary’s faith is her Divine offspring whose Passion and Death were victorious over the serpent and his seed: sin and death. When Luke wrote 1:42, he had the Protoevangelium and the Jewish servant and handmaid Judith in mind. (This is not clearly indicated here, as it is in his writings or recording style in other chapters when he is siting references from the prophets or Jewish scriptures, he clearly puts down “as it was written” or “as the prohphets said”. Why wouldn’t he do the same here? Either Luke didn’t really accept the book of Judith to be in the same league as the other scriptures – or – Luke didn’t feel the need to clearly define anything with regards to Mary, as it simply wasn’t important enough to do so.)

It is clearly indicated in the parallelism of structure.

Luke was not citing a prophecy but alluding to it.

If it were not for Mary’s ‘Fiat’, then there would have been no blood of Christ. You haven’t read what I wrote carefully enough. And until you do, there’s no point in continuing our so-called discussion. I suspect you joined this forum just to contest Catholic teaching. I’m not here to accommodate you. Bye.

PAX

 

[Leeann]

(last for Good Fella)

As there is an ongoing duel between types of Christ and Satan throughout the Old Testament, so too is there an ongoing battle in progress between types of Mary and the devil. The Jewish heroines prefigure the Woman of the Protoevangelium who (whose SEED – Jesus) crushes the head of the serpent. Judith is among those who serve as prefigurements of the New Eve. But the Jewish heroines are not as great as the one whom they prefigure, just as Isaac and David are not as great as Jesus, for they are not the New Eve who helps bring about the spiritual salvation of mankind. The arch-type of the New Testament surpasses that of the Old Testament. Anyway, Mary is identified as “Woman” (completely different context if your are referring to “the woman” in Genesis) by Jesus in the Gospel of John: at the wedding feast and at the foot of the cross, the beginning and end of our Lord’s ministry, inaugurated by Mary’s solicitation and intercession. (By this statement, are you implying that Mary’s solicitation and intercession was necessary at the foot of the cross or was even in evidence??? How so??? )

The evangelist presents her again in Revelation 12: 1, 5 as “Woman” or the New Eve and Mother of the Church. Mary became our new spiritual mother when Jesus gave her to us from the cross. Eve is the biological mother of all the living (Gen 3:20). She first gave birth to Cain. Our Lord is the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29). Thus in Luke 1:42, both the woman and her offspring are blessed, for they are both at enmity with Satan. (that is not why they were blessed, there is no indication of anything in the blessing that was given. (from your own statement above – posted here again below
“……Elizabeth will also declare: “Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”……)

And what was spoken to Mary when she was visited:

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.
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

In Hebrew thought this means that they are both in a spirit of constant opposition against the devil as enemies of the serpent. (as are all believers and followers of Christ) Like her divine Son, Mary was never under the dominion of Satan in virtue of her Divine Maternity and role as the New Eve. Mary could never have sinned according to the scriptures. A woman contributed to the fall by disobedience, a woman contributed to our redemption by obedience. Mary could not have been Eve’s anti-type if she had ever succumbed to the devil’s words at any moment of her life. (So states the Catholic church interpretation……as one would expect, that is, if the Marian Theology that has been developed and propagated over the centuries is to remain in tact and hold any credence….)

---

Posted by Good Fella

The Lord has created a new thing upon the earth; the woman must encompass the man with devotion.
Jeremiah 31, 22

What version of bible are you quoting from Good Fella?
Would you expand on this verse for me a little please and its relation to the topic of this thread…Sinless Mary.

Douay Rheims version

22 How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall compass a man.

King James version

22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? For the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament.”
St. Augustine
Have never had a problem with that – OT/NT – as long as it is the truth is revealed from the interpretation.

 

[Good_Fella]

(continued for Good Fella)

The evangelist perceived the heroine as a prefigurement of Mary, a type of Woman of Promise, the New Eve, who runs current throughout the Old Testament among the Jewish heroines.

In the original Hebrew text we have the neuter epicene personal pronoun in Genesis 3:15. With a dual subject the woman is indicated in the prophecy together with her offspring: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring.” ." (When you read all of the verses, perhaps the meaning of the word “woman” takes on a new perspective especially from the Duoay Rheims edition – where the Latin translation is used to actually “change” the “sense” of the verse, in such a way to now accommodate the “level” of Mary’s participation. More importantly – while a general parallel can and is obviously drawn from these verses between Mary and Eve – when one reads “the woman” here, to whom God is actually addressing, it is evident that it is still EVE He is talking too here. If people can take one verse (15) and suddenly just use that one verse as a necessary crutch for a theology they have propagated over the years – why can they not see or understand that what God was saying to “the woman” EVE and her seed (generations of mankind to come) that they too would have enmity with the serpent (Satan) and his seed? Hasn’t this been true for Christians from the very beginning and is still true today?

Douay Rheims bible
13 And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat. 14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
Explanation Douay Rheims version for verse 15: (red is theirs)15 “She shall crush”… Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.
16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

Both the woman and the child will crush the head of the serpent while he waits at their heels. (again not so, except in the Duoay Rheims bible version, even other Catholic bibles don’t translate it this way.) And the woman is Mary, since it is “her” seed, not the seed of a man. (if you accept that “the woman” in this one particular verse is Mary and not EVE, what about the other verses just prior and after…is that “woman” God is talking too, not also Mary?) It was God who destroyed Holofermes and the Assyrians, but Judith played a vital role as God’s chosen handmaid in the general’s death by doing the actual slaying with the use of a sword. The quickest and most efficient way to kill a snake is to cut off its head.

Prophetically the woman is not Eve. Eve begot Cain by the seed of Adam. The seed of Mary is Jesus by the Virgin Birth.

The Latin Vulgate is the official version of the Vatican.

 

[Good_Fella]

(last for Good Fella)

As there is an ongoing duel between types of Christ and Satan throughout the Old Testament, so too is there an ongoing battle in progress between types of Mary and the devil. The Jewish heroines prefigure the Woman of the Protoevangelium who (whose SEED – Jesus) crushes the head of the serpent. Judith is among those who serve as prefigurements of the New Eve. But the Jewish heroines are not as great as the one whom they prefigure, just as Isaac and David are not as great as Jesus, for they are not the New Eve who helps bring about the spiritual salvation of mankind. The arch-type of the New Testament surpasses that of the Old Testament. Anyway, Mary is identified as “Woman” (completely different context if your are referring to “the woman” in Genesis) by Jesus in the Gospel of John: at the wedding feast and at the foot of the cross, the beginning and end of our Lord’s ministry, inaugurated by Mary’s solicitation and intercession.

The evangelist presents her again in Revelation 12: 1, 5 as “Woman” or the New Eve and Mother of the Church. Mary became our new spiritual mother when Jesus gave her to us from the cross. Eve is the biological mother of all the living (Gen 3:20). She first gave birth to Cain. Our Lord is the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29). Thus in Luke 1:42, both the woman and her offspring are blessed, for they are both at enmity with Satan. (that is not why they were blessed, there is no indication of anything in the blessing that was given. (from your own statement above – posted here again below
“……Elizabeth will also declare: “Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”……)

And what was spoken to Mary when she was visited:

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.
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

In Hebrew thought this means that they are both in a spirit of constant opposition against the devil as enemies of the serpent. (as are all believers and followers of Christ) Like her divine Son, Mary was never under the dominion of Satan in virtue of her Divine Maternity and role as the New Eve. Mary could never have sinned according to the scriptures. A woman contributed to the fall by disobedience, a woman contributed to our redemption by obedience. Mary could not have been Eve’s anti-type if she had ever succumbed to the devil’s words at any moment of her life. (So states the Catholic church interpretation……as one would expect, that is, if the Marian Theology that has been developed and propagated over the centuries is to remain in tact and hold any credence….)

---

Posted by Good Fella

The Lord has created a new thing upon the earth; the woman must encompass the man with devotion.
Jeremiah 31, 22

What version of bible are you quoting from Good Fella?
Would you expand on this verse for me a little please and its relation to the topic of this thread…Sinless Mary.

Douay Rheims version

22 How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: a woman shall compass a man.

King James version

22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? For the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

The NAB (Jeremiah 31,22)

Don’t be too preoccupied with translations and commentaries. Church teachings originate from the Holy Spirit, not from the written texts. The texts come after them through the same Spirit. Protestantism relies just on a book with no Spirit behind it. That’s why your religious movement is a mess of hodgepodge conflicting doctrines.

Prophecies have more than one type of fulfillment. And no prophet is the interpreter of his own prophecy. The Spirit prophesies and later interprets the prophecy through our Lord’s One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

Nuff said. If you want to learn more about Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception there are plenty of books and websites. Bye.

PAX

 

[Leeann]

Quote Good Fella

Luke was not citing a prophecy but alluding to it.

If it were not for Mary’s ‘Fiat’, then there would have been no blood of Christ. You haven’t read what I wrote carefully enough. And until you do, there’s no point in continuing our so-called discussion. I suspect you joined this forum just to contest Catholic teaching. I’m not here to accommodate you. Bye.

By all means Good Fella, why change your way of doing things now? Obviously *you *haven’t read my posts in response of why I am here “carefully enough” - or my post with regards to the “parallelling” that I indeed understand. You can “suspect” all you want, “make assumptions” all you want, “label” and “jokingly discuss me and others” in here who raise serious and sincere points and questions for discussion all you want … and ultimately avoid responding to them, only indicating that either you are uncomfortable and not sure of your answers or that your form of apologetics is limited to simply making statements and then getting upset if anyone presents a different viewpoint.
Whether you are aware of it or not - I have learned a great deal from all of the postings that I’ve read on this thread, not just yours, but others also - even though I haven’t entered into their discussions - but just by reading them.
Thank you for your time and the effort that you have gone too, in responding to me.

Bye! (and may God bless you in your walk)

 

[Good_Fella]

Quote Good Fella

By all means Good Fella, why change your way of doing things now? Obviously *you *haven’t read my posts in response of why I am here “carefully enough” - or my post with regards to the “parallelling” that I indeed understand. You can “suspect” all you want, “make assumptions” all you want, “label” and “jokingly discuss me and others” in here who raise serious and sincere points and questions for discussion all you want … and ultimately avoid responding to them, only indicating that either you are uncomfortable and not sure of your answers or that your form of apologetics is limited to simply making statements and then getting upset if anyone presents a different viewpoint.
Whether you are aware of it or not - I have learned a great deal from all of the postings that I’ve read on this thread, not just yours, but others also - even though I haven’t entered into their discussions - but just by reading them.
Thank you for your time and the effort that you have gone too, in responding to me.

Bye! (and may God bless you in your walk)

You’re welcome. And God bless you.

 

[Leeann]

Wm Scott

What I find amusing with Leeann’s and justasking4’s arguments is that the sinless state of the Blessed Mother, her Immaculate Conception and Assumption was never, I repeat never an issue for over 1500 years. Moreover, it was not until Martin Luther, later in life when he was old a bitter towards the Catholic Church that it even became an issue. At first, he had no issue with the Blessed Mother. There was never at any time in history of Christianity issues surrounding the Blessed Mother until later in the reformation. It is a relatively new phenomenon when you look back over 2000 years of history. You get the Bible only literalists, those who only have limited information, and by the way, the Bible is a CC product, coupled with the fact they have no central teaching authority, you get an infinite amount of personal misinterpretations. As with Leeann’s and justasking4’s, you have explained the concepts to them, I do not know how many ways, and they still do not get it. In a nutshell, they have lost the bubble regarding Sacred Tradition and do not understand that it is also the Word of God just as Sacred Scripture is. You may be getting to the point that you are going to start covering old ground. God bless you for keeping the dialog open, hopefully you will plant a seed of reason, if not with Leeann and justasking4, then maybe with others. Keep up the good work.

What I find sad and dispiriting, is your need to post about other posters in amusement, without directly addressing them - but as if in idle conversation or gossip to others on this public board.

I much prefer a person who is opposed to my viewpoints, to directly state it to me, as elvisman and good fella have both done. At least then a certain amount of respect and weight can be attributed to their own viewpoints on the topic being discussed, based on the effort they made to respond and on the courage they had in doing so.

 

[Leeann]

Having said that:

I’m now sticking my tongue out at elvisman for his last post to me!



Except this happy face looks too happy…so imagine it without the little smile and the colour is dark grey!

I’m tired and hungry now and have to get away from this computer for a few hours…

 

[wmscott]

Wm Scott

What I find sad and dispiriting, is your need to post about other posters in amusement, without directly addressing them - but as if in idle conversation or gossip to others on this public board.

I much prefer a person who is opposed to my viewpoints, to directly state it to me, as elvisman and good fella have both done. At least then a certain amount of respect and weight can be attributed to their own viewpoints on the topic being discussed, based on the effort they made to respond and on the courage they had in doing so.

Goodfella has addressed all of you misinterpretations and beliefs regarding the Blessed Mother and you still refuse to see the truth. There is no need to keep going over the same points, as they have been more than sufficiently answered by Goodfella and in other threads with the truth. My note was to Goodfella and not you, but if the truth stings a little so be it. However, instead of hiding my comments to goodfella in a private post, I put it out there for all to see. As far as amusement goes, sometimes a person has to just chuckle and shake their head at the stubborn persistence in folks that continue to run around with blinders on. Better that than anger and profanity.

 

[Leeann]

Why hello wm scott!

Goodfella has addressed all of you misinterpretations and beliefs regarding the Blessed Mother and you still refuse to see the truth.
Thank you for your opinion.
There is no need to keep going over the same points, as they have been more than sufficiently answered by Goodfella and in other threads with the truth. My note was to Goodfella and not you, but if the truth stings a little so be it. However, instead of hiding my comments to goodfella in a private post, I put it out there for all to see.
Annddd*……”I realize how wrong that is now, but can’t swallow my pride and admit it and apologize to those concerned”…… *

As far as amusement goes, sometimes a person has to just chuckle and shake their head at the stubborn persistence in folks that continue to run around with blinders on.
Well I do agree with you on that….I’ve been here chuckling myself sometimes at the responses I’ve received….but then the Lord usually bangs me on the back of the head and reminds me to tow the line…that may be an unusual concept for Catholics to grasp, but I believe it’s a relatively new form of enlightenment that He started using just after the Reformation…sometimes He has to use a 2x4 for more impact, but eventually the message gets through……see…it’s always good to be able to laugh at oneself….helps keep things in perspective.

Better that than anger and profanity.

Oh definitely….are you prone to those too?

 

[elvisman]

Having said that:

I’m now sticking my tongue out at elvisman for his last post to me!



Except this happy face looks too happy…so imagine it without the little smile and the colour is dark grey!

I’m tired and hungry now and have to get away from this computer for a few hours…

Very mature.
Answers a lot of questions I had about your age and religious affiliation . . .

 

[justasking4]

What I find amusing with Leeann’s and justasking4’s arguments is that the sinless state of the Blessed Mother, her Immaculate Conception and Assumption was never, I repeat never an issue for over 1500 years. Moreover, it was not until Martin Luther, later in life when he was old a bitter towards the Catholic Church that it even became an issue. At first, he had no issue with the Blessed Mother. There was never at any time in history of Christianity issues surrounding the Blessed Mother until later in the reformation. It is a relatively new phenomenon when you look back over 2000 years of history. You get the Bible only literalists, those who only have limited information, and by the way, the Bible is a CC product, coupled with the fact they have no central teaching authority, you get an infinite amount of personal misinterpretations. As with Leeann’s and justasking4’s, you have explained the concepts to them, I do not know how many ways, and they still do not get it. In a nutshell, they have lost the bubble regarding Sacred Tradition and do not understand that it is also the Word of God just as Sacred Scripture is. You may be getting to the point that you are going to start covering old ground. God bless you for keeping the dialog open, hopefully you will plant a seed of reason, if not with Leeann and justasking4, then maybe with others. Keep up the good work.

i understand fully what the immaculate conception of Mary involves. In terms of “misinterpretations” has your church ever infallibly interpreted the verses used to support this doctrine to mean that she was sinless? I’m not talking about some doctrinal pronouncement of a pope but an actual interpretation of the passages to mean that Mary was considered sinless by Jesus or His apostles. Does such an interpretation by the Catholic church exist?

 

[Leeann]

Originally Posted by Leeann
Having said that:

I’m now sticking my tongue out at elvisman for his last post to me!
Except this happy face looks too happy…so imagine it without the little smile and the colour is dark grey!

I’m tired and hungry now and have to get away from this computer for a few hours…

Very mature.
**Answers a lot **of questions I had about your age and religious affiliation . . .

Do Catholics not have a sense of humour?