M
Mickey
Guest
I think you already know my response.
What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?
- Status
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Little reaching going on, but we can work with it.Yeah…Rome was never afraid to introduce a new doctrine.
R
rinnie
Guest
How can being preserved from any stain of original sin mean she was born with original sin? Can you explain that to me.Yeah…we know what it is now…but it wasn’t always that way.
Good ol’ Pius IX.
That is why she is not an exception…because she was born with original sin…that is the point.
She is our great example.
And where was it ever taught that we were ever immune from the stain from original sin? How in the world are you putting in the same basket?
ANd yes Mickey it was ALWAYS taught. When and where do you see that it was ever changed?
Mary was saved from Original Sin at the moment of her conception from any stain of original sin. That is the POINT Mickey. Where has the Church ever taught any different?
R
rinnie
Guest
The authority given to him by Jesus Christ by giving him the keys to the kingdom. Where did Jesus every say that the Pope had to answer to anyone but God.
Where did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom to anyone but the Pope? Jesus said whatever you bound on earth is held bound in heaven.
M
Mickey
Guest
Simple. She was not conceived without original sin.
We are not immuned from the stain of ancestral sin. You seem confused.
You say it was taught from the beginning. The burden of proof is on you to show it. Saints in the Roman Catholic Church were debating this well into the second millenium…so it is obvious that it was not someting taught from the beginning.
Officially? 1854.
M
Mickey
Guest
Not really.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The IC taught as the IC wasn’t a dogma of faith nor an entire concept in which case the Saint you quoted would be correct in the 12th century Mick. Though I do believe he overlooks the independance of the teachings of the early church fathers.
We addressed most of this in previous pages here? The 12th century is actually very accurate from what we talked about last few pages.
And the darn apparitions keep happening. I"m starting to wonder… Hey, theres an ABC special on them this week on primetime:thumbsup:
Idol worship is another topic Pelikan spends a chapter or so on. Another “misconception” since idol worship could only mean evil.
Gary
We addressed most of this in previous pages here? The 12th century is actually very accurate from what we talked about last few pages.
And the darn apparitions keep happening. I"m starting to wonder… Hey, theres an ABC special on them this week on primetime:thumbsup:
Idol worship is another topic Pelikan spends a chapter or so on. Another “misconception” since idol worship could only mean evil.
Gary
M
Mickey
Guest
The Early Church Fathers teach no such thing.
That is for another thread.
K
kylemccloughan
Guest
Although I respect your opinion Gary, I must take exception to how you are trying to argue the IC in reverse. No Scriptural evidence to support the contrary of something is can be used to say that there is no evidence in Scripture to say that Joseph wasn’t the same age as Mary either. It doesn’t do a thing to highlight fact.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Mick, the connection between Irenaeus with Mary/Eve to Genesis “relates” to the IC. In that when you read the Dogma of Faith of the CC in the IC the connection with Mary to Genesis is required belief and the “second” part of the IC. Maybe I should just post this also…The Early Church Fathers teach no such thing.
That is for another thread.
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CEwQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F07674d.htm&ei=2agcTqyWA8r50gHW2-3IBw&usg=AFQjCNF_5-bJURwLh1WkDs_ce8_hY_s_UQ
Scroll down and you’ll see the early church father’s referrenced with Irenaeus. What the link is referring too, is what I was talking about with the Irenaeus quote.
This…
Mary as the second Eve
This celebrated comparison between Eve, while yet immaculate and incorrupt — that is to say, not subject to original sin — and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:
Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 100),
Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.22.4),
Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ 17),
Julius Firmicus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses 12.29),
Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).
Gary
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
In scripture the evidence you seek is also listed in the above link. Should you read the IC in reverse or forward isn’t of question. As long as you arrive at understanding the foward context. My point being that I believe what started this conversation was the passing falacy that the IC didn’t appear till the 18th century. Without breaking a sweat we are in the 12th.
I didn’t even go to scripture with this, but should you read a verse above which you can’t agree with? I will kick it around with you.
Its not a matter of converting or selling the IC, or anyone enforcing any beliefs on anyone. Its simply the doctrine of the church which you’ll see above is based on History/Scripture. Basically I’m just filling in the blanks to what a link/thread isn’t telling.
Peace, Gary
K
KathleenGee
Guest
It is in the tradition of faith, that Christians have always believed Mary was conceived without sin. Mary is also symbolic of the perfection of faith in the Church. She is the perfection Christian.
Her apparitions started, I believe, around 200 AD…and there have been many scholarly works on seeking union with God and the walk in perfection.
The Orthodox Church focuses on Christ’s Resurrection and His prior Transfiguration. The Latin Church focuses on the Resurrection but also the Pasch, beginning with St. Francis of Assisi…
The Latin Church invites the world to Christ, it guides and teaches, more outward oriented, and recognizes the gifts of many cultures’ expression of faith, so we have a more universal charism.
Mary is also the Mother of all Christians, bearing us through the perfection of Jesus Christ in His death and Resurrection.
We have two different perspectives, but we are of the same body of Jesus Christ…given us by Mary Immaculate.
Her apparitions started, I believe, around 200 AD…and there have been many scholarly works on seeking union with God and the walk in perfection.
The Orthodox Church focuses on Christ’s Resurrection and His prior Transfiguration. The Latin Church focuses on the Resurrection but also the Pasch, beginning with St. Francis of Assisi…
The Latin Church invites the world to Christ, it guides and teaches, more outward oriented, and recognizes the gifts of many cultures’ expression of faith, so we have a more universal charism.
Mary is also the Mother of all Christians, bearing us through the perfection of Jesus Christ in His death and Resurrection.
We have two different perspectives, but we are of the same body of Jesus Christ…given us by Mary Immaculate.
R
rinnie
Guest
Mickey if the Blessed Mother was saved from Original sin at the second of her conception how could she be concieved with Original sin? When do you see that that she could have had the stain of original sin.Simple. She was not conceived without original sin.
We are not immuned from the stain of ancestral sin. You seem confused.
You say it was taught from the beginning. The burden of proof is on you to show it. Saints in the Roman Catholic Church were debating this well into the second millenium…so it is obvious that it was not someting taught from the beginning.
Officially? 1854.
R
rinnie
Guest
Mickey let me put this another way.
The Blessed Mother was SAVED from original sin at the moment of her Conception. NOT her birth.
Now God saved her from the moment of her conception. Now to be saved from something means it never touched you as I explained.
Now what makes this such a big issue.
Here is why it makes it such a big issue for Catholic’s and should for everyone.
In order for Christ to not be born into ORIGINAL SIN it could not have touched his Mother.
Why are we born INTO Original Sin? Simple we all inherit it from our Mother and Father. We are born into sin because our Mother had it.
We could not say that Christ was Born SINLESS if his Mother was touched with this sin. Do you see where I and the Catholic Church are comming from.
Nothing is impossible for GOD and of course GOD is sinless. But he had to be brought into this world with a sinless Human. SHe had to be untouched completly without sin. Do you udnerstand what I am saying.
If she had it Christ could not be the true Savior of the World which we know he is!!
That is why she is the NEW Eve, where EVE failed the Blessed Mother succeeded.
Eve sinned the Blessed Mother did not.
SHe could not, or she could not be the Mother of God. She HAD to be perfect untouched with sin.
Please think what I am saying if I save you from being killed by a car you were not killed by a car. THe same way the blessed Mother was saved from Original SIn she was not touched by Original sin.
The Blessed Mother was SAVED from original sin at the moment of her Conception. NOT her birth.
Now God saved her from the moment of her conception. Now to be saved from something means it never touched you as I explained.
Now what makes this such a big issue.
Here is why it makes it such a big issue for Catholic’s and should for everyone.
In order for Christ to not be born into ORIGINAL SIN it could not have touched his Mother.
Why are we born INTO Original Sin? Simple we all inherit it from our Mother and Father. We are born into sin because our Mother had it.
We could not say that Christ was Born SINLESS if his Mother was touched with this sin. Do you see where I and the Catholic Church are comming from.
Nothing is impossible for GOD and of course GOD is sinless. But he had to be brought into this world with a sinless Human. SHe had to be untouched completly without sin. Do you udnerstand what I am saying.
If she had it Christ could not be the true Savior of the World which we know he is!!
That is why she is the NEW Eve, where EVE failed the Blessed Mother succeeded.
Eve sinned the Blessed Mother did not.
SHe could not, or she could not be the Mother of God. She HAD to be perfect untouched with sin.
Please think what I am saying if I save you from being killed by a car you were not killed by a car. THe same way the blessed Mother was saved from Original SIn she was not touched by Original sin.
R
rinnie
Guest
Yes This is the teaching of our Church and always has been. To say that the Blessed Mother HAD to be conceived into Original Sin is saying God could not save her from it because she is human.
God can do anything he wants and did. He saved HER because she would be the ONLY human to be perfected to give life to the GOD made Man= Human and divine.
IT was that GRACE given to her by GOd that made her perfect and no stain of SIN that could be passed on to God when he became Human.
I hope I am saying this right to get people to understand why this HAD to be.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I don’t get your logic. So you say that Christ could not be born without original sin unless his mother, the blessed Virgin Mary was without original sin, but then you also say that God made the Virgin Mary to be without original sin, despite the fact that her parents were with original sin. Why then could not have Christ just been made Immaculate by God from the moment of the Incarnation? What necessity was there for Mary to be without original sin if God can just wipe away original sin at will at the moment of conception?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
If Mary was created stained with original sin, she would have passed on original sin to Christ.
Instead, God created Mary without sin. Her very conception was ‘yes’ to Christ which was echoed at the Annunciation.
Instead, God created Mary without sin. Her very conception was ‘yes’ to Christ which was echoed at the Annunciation.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The woman clothed with the sun in Revelations is both Mary and the Church. She is the Christian par excellence and one cannot say she was like ordinary women sharing sin.
K
kylemccloughan
Guest
I do appreciate the friendly dialogue on this Gary. What is problematic to me is that you are pushing without relent to get the 12th century into this and its really a major obstacle to the IC and I suspect that this is why it never became dogma in the RC until way way later. In fact, ECF’s such as Aquinas, Bernard and Ambrose all denied the IC. Secondly, it absolutely is NOT a matter of Scripture. If it is, you must show us chapter and verse. Thank you.
- Status