The Universal Church

[mcq72]

Actually, @mcq72; what I see you doing is what Ianman87’s doing.

Thank you…in good company then.

Sorry you don’t feel our arguments are arguments.

You have as others done very well with patiently giving good evidences for your positions. Sorry you feel we don’t match you. Will see if we (I) can make a better bridge to any understanding of contrary evidences.

Personally , i feel I87 has matched you very well in argumentation.

 

[Agathon77]

@mcq72,

Sigh. I love you, brother.

 

[Agathon77]

You really pleasantly surprised me, @mcq72. Thank you for your kindnesses. My question is: Why do you believe I87 matched me so well?

 

[mcq72]

trying to say where is it explicitly said,while you can’t find a verse that denies IC; while trying to deny logical deduction with it all boils down to interpretation.

what is wrong with such exegesis?..we both do it, as well as interpretive implications even applications of any said writ.

As to IC, sin nature, or original sin, is our default nature, according to several scriptures (all have sinned etc)…understand exceptions can make the rule, citing Jesus never sinned , but we are explicitly told that ("He knew no sin).There is no specific scripture that Mary never sinned. There is only implicit, interpreted scriptures, such as “full of grace” that are used by CC. Obviously others interpret differently.

Of course we also had tradition that both sides use, and within CC we had “both sides” way before any protestants came on scene (was never unanimous) before any dogmatization ala ex cathedra decree, per my understanding. I have been told two separate holy orders (Augustinians and Dominicans?) argued for and against respectively the IC for quite awhile in centuries past.

Now if you want to say one side uses logical deduction and the other not, fine, that is your prerogative, and certainly both sides have accused each other of such thru out history.

i have also given counter reasons why no IC is “fitting” in another post…not mention the “logic” that if Immaculate Mary can be conceived in sinful fallen flesh of her mother, so could Immaculate Jesus be conceived in such a mother, though I understand Jesus is obviously much more than Immaculate, being divine also.

 

[mcq72]

You really pleasantly surprised me, @mcq72. Thank you for your kindnesses. My question is: Why do you believe I87 matched me so well?

well, would have to go back and see which of his posts i hit the “like” icon, but I thought he posted historical scriptural and traditional argumentation to match yours.

 

[Agathon77]

I tell you what, @mcq72:

I appreciate your two posts and the first one has quite a bit to unpack.

Unfortunately, my brain is fried. So, I’ll just have to pack it in for the night and I’ll answer you sometime tomorrow.

Fair?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Wow! I spend a day away from a computer and come back to find a bombardment I’ll try and start at the top and work my way down.

lol

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Green bay is out – so all is right in the world once again.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

My claim is that the Mariology of the Catholic church started in the late 2nd Century when Mary was said to be the “new Eve” and it was built upon from there by the imaginations and speculations of Theologians and Bishops. Hence, there will be no writings from the Apostles showing that they didn’t think she was the ever-virgin (and other Marian doctrines).

The question is, In which way is the Gospel maintained. By Scripture alone or by Scripture and Tradition?

The end of John’s Gospel tells us the obvious – that much occurred that was not written. The Gospel is about events, not just words. Without the actual events taking place, we have no salvation in which to hang our hopes upon.

Something like Communicatio idiomatum is considered absolute truth that we all believe in. Yet it was not until after the apostles that all this was further examined and put into words. This is how the Church has always operated. Tackling the bigger issues first and leaving the lesser in the lumber yard. It’s why the Marian stuff does not come until later. Bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

 

[steve-b]

I’ve heard Jimmy Akin admit that this is a very poor translation. He says that Jesus is the one crushing the serpent’s head. But yes, enmity between the woman and Satan.

Just a quick comment.

Re: translations

In English

Gen 3:15
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed;
he shall bruise your head,[a]
and you shall bruise his heel.”

YET

Gen 3:15

in Hebrew

וְאֵיבָ֣ה אָשִׁ֗ית בֵּֽינְךָ֙ וּבֵ֣ין הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וּבֵ֥ין זַרְעֲךָ֖ וּבֵ֣ין זַרְעָ֑הּ ה֚וּא וְאֵיבָ֣ה אָשִׁ֗ית בֵּֽינְךָ֙ וּבֵ֣ין הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וּבֵ֥ין זַרְעֲךָ֖ וּבֵ֣ין זַרְעָ֑הּ ה֚וּא

הוּא = he, she, it

So it’s not necessarily clear, ( הוּא ) CAN also be she, as in Mary

יְשׁוּפְךָ֣ רֹ֔אשׁ וְאַתָּ֖ה תְּשׁוּפֶ֥נּוּ

 

[steve-b]

Agathon77:

trying to say where is it explicitly said,while you can’t find a verse that denies IC; while trying to deny logical deduction with it all boils down to interpretation.

what is wrong with such exegesis?..we both do it, as well as interpretive implications even applications of any said writ.

As to IC, sin nature, or original sin, is our default nature, according to several scriptures (all have sinned etc)…understand exceptions can make the rule, citing Jesus never sinned , but we are explicitly told that ("He knew no sin).There is no specific scripture that Mary never sinned. There is only implicit, interpreted scriptures, such as “full of grace” that are used by CC. Obviously others interpret differently.

Luke 1:28 reads
και εισελθων προς αυτην ειπεν, χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη

Translation

χαῖρε, = chairó = rejoice, salutation, Hail
κεχαριτωμένη, = charitoo, highly graced, endowed this way perfectly, (IOW fully graced) & it’s passive, she was freely made that way by God.

AND

This is how Mary is before God. This is how God sees Mary.

AND

The Angel Gabriel is the one who delivers this message to Mary.

Note: He doesn’t refer to her with her name Mary, it is Hail full of grace.

Also

This word is not speaking of just a little grace, it is speaking of an abundance of grace. Perfectly graced as in Fully graced… full of grace

AND

this is a completed action, the effects are still on going in this verse. Mary is still full of grace when the angel says this.

And THEN
Mary says YES (let it be done to me), and Jesus literally not only fills her, God the Son, 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, He takes HIS flesh from Mary.

One has to ask

Will God literally, become imperfect with sinful flesh?

OR

NOTHING imperfect can be in God.

SO

She remains perfectly graced till her own entrance to heaven. with her son.

 

[Crocus]

Will God literally, become imperfect with sinful flesh?

She remains perfectly graced till her own entrance to heaven. with her son.

He literally takes His flesh from Mary!

 

[Agathon77]

Essentially, @mcq72:

Theology is done scientifically. From evidence, logic, facts, the text and academic rigor.

Not just because I think it means what I believe it means.

 

[mcq72]

The end of John’s Gospel tells us the obvious – that much occurred that was not written. The Gospel is about events, not just words. Without the actual events taking place, we have no salvation in which to hang our hopes upon…It’s why the Marian stuff does not come until later. Bigger fish to fry, so to speak.

John and what was written gave us everything we needed on which to hang our salvation on. I believe his inference is that what he left out was more of the same, as in more miracles and encounters with same message and impact, that is superfluous. Another way of saying etc., etc., etc… Any other inference might turn tradition into a pandoras box.

As Barnabus wrote, " Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written."

I am not ruling out any future small fish to fry past apostolic writings and times, just wouldn’t say our salvation hangs upon such a meal.

 

[mcq72]

Will God literally, become imperfect with sinful flesh?

What do we call it when someone calls literal flesh, apart from soul, spirit, evil ?

Even by your own analysis you have no specificity as to the time of her immaculteness, other than it being present when angel arrives. Says nothing of Mary being perfect while drawing sinful flesh from the womb of her mother, which the IC dare go.

Did Jesus become imperfect when He was made sin, took on sin, at the cross?

Did He not come for such a baptism, for this very thing to do ?

 

[mcq72]

He literally takes His flesh from Mary

Yes and no. The baby and mother are separate entities…life is in the blood and the mother and baby do not mix their blood…what the baby takes from the mother is her dna…even nutrients have a sort of middle man in the placenta…a literal understanding of such flesh of mother given to child is used by abortionists in saying it is part of my body hence it is " me" or " mine" to do whatever with…it is unfactual.

 

[Crocus]

Did you ever hear of Jesus being the New Adam, and Mary being the New Eve?

“flesh of my flesh” is how Adam addressed Eve.
This time it is Jesus, who is “flesh of my flesh” in relation to Mary.

You are right about abortionists who, unlike the Catholic Church, do not recognize the life as beginning at conception.

 

[Agathon77]

@mcq72,

Our Lady was Immaculate from the moment of her Conception. I’m not sure why you’re arguing as to when it happened: Immaculate at Conception. Simply put: She is impeccable, all holy, full of grace and sinless for her entire existence. This is to prep her for her role in the economy of salvation.

As for the sinful flesh thing you have a problem with: Spirit masters flesh as we see in Jesus and as Saint Paul teaches in Romans.

Another thing to consider:

You question why would God purify someone ( Our Lady ) in order to fulfill His purpose for them. I have a biblically based answer to that question: Consider the prophet Isaiah.

He was a man of unclean lips and told God so when God called him to be his prophet to Israel. While in his vision of heaven, an angel took a coal from a brazier on the heavenly altar and put it to Isaiah’s lips to burn the uncleanness off of him and he was then clean enough to speak God’s Word to His people Israel.

God saw a need, a clean set of lips to speak His Word; and took the steps to render His chosen vessel worthy and clean for that purpose.

Our Lady not only spoke the Word, she carried Him in her womb for nine months, gave Him flesh and our human nature, gave birth to Him and raised Him from a baby with the help of good Saint Joseph.

It follows that God would do better for Our Lady for the greater role she plays than what Isaiah did.

What do you think, @Margaret_Ann?

 

[Agathon77]

@mcq72,

I’m a little concerned with your statement of: Did He not come for such a baptism for this very thing to do?

I’m asking this in love; not contempt or condescension:

Are you really saying a highly unbiblical thing that Jesus needed baptism because He was made sin, took on sinful flesh as prep for His Cross?

I hope I’m misunderstanding you, brother.

Because Hebrews says that He was like us in everything but sin.

 

[Agathon77]

The problem, @mcq72; with your statement on Tradition is:

You’re still ignoring 2 Thess 2:15 in which both teachings by word of mouth and by letter are authoritative. That’s Tradition and Scripture. Why are you ignoring that?

By the way, one can also see a prescient warning in 2 Thess 2:15, teaching that what we say and what we write are both authoritative and cannot be taken separately or one above the other. Maybe they had a interior movement that forewarned them that somebody would argue Sola Scriptura one day and thus Saint Paul wrote 2 Thess 2:15.

Take that verse in account with 2 Peter 3:16, to be on guard against the ignorant and unstable that twist the Scriptures to their destruction and threatens others’ stability; you see a reasoned biblical defense against Sola Scriptura and private interpretation defiant/independent of the Magisterium.

Besides, here’s the structure in the Church:

Tradition-Scripture=Deposit of Faith ( Mutually supporting, indivisible and never contradicts each other ) with Magisterium ( Teaching Authority that’s NEVER above the Deposit ) serves the Deposit of Faith by preserving, studying, defending and handing it down through the generations.

When controversy and heresies arise, the Magisterium looks into the Deposit and defines and declares what the Deposit teaches in order to settle the issue.

The Magisterium, composed of the Holy Father and all of the bishops in communion with him; is infallibly led into all truth by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ.

So, we can see that Tradition will never be above nor drift away from Scripture.

A fundamental problem with Sola Scriptura is that it subordinates Tradition upon Scripture.

2 Peter 3:16

As we see in Protestant hermeneutics and eisegesis; Protestants don’t even stay faithful to Scripture as they find and teach doctrines contrary to Scripture. When they do faithfully exegete; their doctrines agree with Catholic doctrines.

I’m sorry to sound harsh and uncharitable. Not meaning to be harsh and uncharitable.

It’s hard, even though I assume full honesty on the part of Protestant exegetes; but that’s the only reasonable explanation I can find in my understanding of Protestant hermeneutics that really is just eisegesis.