Youtube: Debate Between Fr. Pacwa and Dr. Walter Martin

  • Thread starter Thread starter anrmenchaca47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anrmenchaca47

Guest
So I finally got enough nerve to watch a debate between Fr. Pacwa and Dr. Martin of the Christian Research institute. Oneof the quotes Dr. Martin uses is from Augustine of Hippo in which Augustine says “HE, Christ, alone being made a man but remaing God never had any sin nor did he take on flesh of sin, though he took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

Dr. Martin also quotes St Thomas Aquinas and even St. Bernard both who thought that the Immaculate Conception was unnecessary. Can someone clarify this and what rebuttal can be used here.
 
Philotheatoo said:
Does anyone, other than God, KNOW?
Click to expand...
Of course, plenty of people know, eveyone in heaven specifically.

Also Holy Mary knows. The doctrine of the immaculate conception was declared in 1854. When Holy Mary appeared to a peasant girl (in 1858) she said she was the Immaculate Conception.

The peasant girl was 15 years old. She wouldn’t know a term like that. That girl became who we know of as St. Bernadette of Lourdes.

It is possible that the Church made up the whole thing as a way to promote the doctrine. But it seems highly implausable. That the Church faked the story and fooled everyone is more implausable than that it actually happened. If you are going to fake something you can come up with far better ways of doing it. Why not have the Pope hear it? Why not just claim a magical paper appeared with the doctrine.

Just because a doctrine is declared does not mean it is a new doctrine. If in the near future marriage is formally defined as requiring one man and one women it does not follow that prior to that marriages were same sex, multiple partners, etc. At no time in history has any society had marriages between same sex couples, even in societies that accepted homosexuality as normal. It is only when something is challenged that it must be formally defined and promoted. I hope that in the near future marriage will be formally declared as being between a man and a women. A constitutional ammendment may be required. I supposed that historians in the future will conclude that same sex marriages were common until the 21st century when marriages where changed to male-female only.
 
+All in God’s perfect timing . . . the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was first proclaimed as an Infallible Truth within the Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church by Pope IX in 1854 . . . *long after St. Augustine, St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Acquinas lived . . . *

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
+P****apal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error [1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.

This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. According to Catholic theology, there are several concepts important to the understanding of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium. The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the “ordinary and universal magisterium”. In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e…, that he is specially exempt from liability to sin.

In practice, popes seldom use their power of infallibility, but rely on the notion that the Church allows the office of the pope to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the Church. [2] Since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, this power has been used only once ex cathedra: in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, :highprayer: Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic bishops, had proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of Mary an EX CATHEDRA DOGMA in December 1854.

:highprayer: Conditions for teachings being declared infallible

Statements by a pope which exercise papal infallibility are referred to as “solemn papal definitions” or ex cathedra teachings. Also considered infallible are the teachings of the whole body of bishops of the Church, especially but not only in an ecumenical council[14] (see Infallibility of the Church).

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra papal teaching are as follows:
  1. “the Roman Pontiff”
  2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority…”)
  3. “he defines”
  4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
  5. “must be held by the whole Church” (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4).[15]
For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must be a decision of the supreme teaching authority of the Church (pope or College of Bishops); it must concern a doctrine of faith of morals; it must bind the universal Church; and it must be proposed as something to be** held firmly and immutably**. The terminology of a definitive decree will usually make clear that this last condition is fulfilled, as through a formula such as

**
"By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful", or through an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.[16]
​
​
- Wapedia​
​
​

(Click on the link below for further information . . .)

Link: wapedia.mobi/en/Ex_cathedra​
. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+​
 
Philotheatoo said:
Does anyone, other than God, KNOW?
Click to expand...
I guess the purpose is knowing how to defend issues like that, especially when quotes from saint’s, especially those canonized by the church, are thrown into the whole “Well, THIS Saint said THIS about it” arguement. Yeah, I would believe God know’s, but I’m looking at it from an apologetic stand point to defend our Faith. Thats all.
 
anrmenchaca47 said:
So I finally got enough nerve to watch a debate between Fr. Pacwa and Dr. Martin of the Christian Research institute. Oneof the quotes Dr. Martin uses is from Augustine of Hippo in which Augustine says “HE, Christ, alone being made a man but remaing God never had any sin nor did he take on flesh of sin, though he took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

Dr. Martin also quotes St Thomas Aquinas and even St. Bernard both who thought that the Immaculate Conception was unnecessary. Can someone clarify this and what rebuttal can be used here.
Click to expand...
I have seen the debate…an interesting piece that is missing from the St. Thomas Aquinas part is that he says he would accept WHATEVER the church’s decision would be.

I will try to find the exact quote for you and post it.
 
Here is the quote, from St. Thomas’ last words while near death:

“If through ignorance I have done otherwise, I revoke everything of that kind, and submit all my writings to the judgment of the holy Roman Church.”

catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=130

That quote at least helped me get past Dr. Walter Martin’s argument.

You can do a google search and find a LOT more on St. Thomas’ relationship with the IC.

Hope this helps and good luck!
 
anrmenchaca47 said:
So I finally got enough nerve to watch a debate between Fr. Pacwa and Dr. Martin of the Christian Research institute. Oneof the quotes Dr. Martin uses is from Augustine of Hippo in which Augustine says “HE, Christ, alone being made a man but remaing God never had any sin nor did he take on flesh of sin, though he took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

Dr. Martin also quotes St Thomas Aquinas and even St. Bernard both who thought that the Immaculate Conception was unnecessary. Can someone clarify this and what rebuttal can be used here.
Click to expand...
Sts. Augustine, Thomas and Bernard were brilliant men. But the Church is infallible. And that is how I address those type of challenges. St. Thomas, for instance, taught that children were ensouled after the first trimester. Yet the Church has always taught that God knit the soul in the womb of the mother at the moment of conception.

Here is a link to an alternative answer by a learned priest:
Fr. Lagrange suggests that Thomas Aquinas went through three stages of development with regard to the Immaculate Conception:
Early Stage (before 1254 - Commentary on Sentences): Thomas affirmed the Immaculate Conception of Mary
Middle Stage (1254-1272 - Summa theologiae): Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary
Final Stage (after 1272): Thomas returned to his faith in the Immaculate Conception of Mary…
In the third period, “For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure because she incurred the stain neither of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin.”[Expositio super salutatione angelica]

Oh what a happy thought - that Thomas died with full faith in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary!
thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2012/01/clarification-on-immaculate-conception.html

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria
 
“For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure because she incurred the stain neither of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin.”[Expositio super salutatione angelica]
Click to expand...
That quote from Thomas is somewhat spurious. I have come across it before (in the interim translation of the Dominican propers, no less!), and the Latin says nothing about original sin.

“Ipsa enim purissima fuit et quantum ad culpam, quia ipsa virgo nec mortale nec veniale peccatum incurrit.”

The part translated ‘of original sin’ does not appear in the latin. If you leave that out, that quote translates the Latin correctly.

Many saints have believed things about the faith which later development decided was not quite the best expression of the truth, or even false. Augustine is important, but he was wrong about a number of things. Many of the Fathers were trying to find answers to questions which were popping up. Those answers continued to develop over time.

When looking at the saints and the Fathers for proofs of what the Church believes, what is important is what is believed by many, not by one or two. Every theologian has their own eccentric beliefs which others do not necessarily accept. The Fathers and saints are not prooftexts.

The real question in these sorts of debates is about whether or not the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and what the Church looks like, and what the Holy Spirit’s guidance looks like. It all boils down to this.
 
This has been the most helpful thread! Whomever referred to the infallibility of the Church, I thank you; it is a term I often use when my small mind fails to come up apologetically.

Interestingly, in one of my Jewish Studies course I learned that the Jewish religion, from where the majority of our traditions/rituals have come, found homosexuality to be against God’s Will.
 
The Aquinas link above is exactly how I wold have responded to that one! :o

Martin, like a lot of anti-Catholics, think if they can find an ECF who should happen to have held an opinion that did not later fit with a dogma somehow discredits Catholicism. His understanding of doctrinal development was impoverished. It’s like trying to discredit the decision made in Acts 15 on the basis that there were elders there who held contrary opinions prior to the council’s decision. Tradition must rather speak with a corporate voice, and ultimately, through the Holy Spirit when definitions are made. Whatever Augustine, Aquinas, Bernard, or some other theologian said prior to the definition contributed to the development of the Church’s understanding. Clearly the idea of Mary’s Immaculate Conception was also there from the earliest times, in the text of Luke, in types of the OT, and in the subsequent centuries there were early understandings of Mary’s spotlessness. Rather than trying to give us anecdotes, Martin would have better grasped the nature of the Spirit guiding the Church to “all truth” (Jn 16:13) if he could have demonstrated a lopsided pattern in favor of Mary sinning, then he’d have something to be considered.

Take Fr. Feeney in the 1950s. He was excommunicated for being rigorist on the notion of “no salvation outside the Church.” But I heard on the radio the other day he was later reconciled. Does his individual position mean “the Church” contradicted herself? Of course not. Martin was just trying to score debate points with the ignorant, which may have included himself.

Or take the very Biblical canon itself. ECFs like Origen or Eusebius questioned the Scriptural quality of 2nd Peter. Yet Martin accepted that book as Scripture. He didn’t even follow his own rule of “If I can find an exception among the ECFs, I discredit the rule canonized later.” Origen or Eusebius didn’t stop him from accepting 2nd Peter’s canonicity. Nor should it have. And an ECF that may have thought Mary had sin shouldn’t stop us from sorting out the theology and trusting the Church’s later dogma on that issue either. The Spirit will guide.
 
anrmenchaca47 said:
So I finally got enough nerve to watch a debate between Fr. Pacwa and Dr. Martin of the Christian Research institute. Oneof the quotes Dr. Martin uses is from Augustine of Hippo in which Augustine says “HE, Christ, alone being made a man but remaing God never had any sin nor did he take on flesh of sin, though he took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

Dr. Martin also quotes St Thomas Aquinas and even St. Bernard both who thought that the Immaculate Conception was unnecessary. Can someone clarify this and what rebuttal can be used here.
Click to expand...
anrmenchaca47 Good to meet you…
I would say… “Adam was formed from PERFECT material” the Waters are Holy because; the second verse in the scriptures tell us the; “Holy Spirit HOVERED over the waters”!
Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

anrmenchaca47 all of creation came “UP OUT” of the Holy Waters!
The Earth came “UP OUT” of the Holy Waters so, the Earth was then HOLY!
Adam was formed from the Holy EARTH, Adam was thus formed HOLY… THEN…
Then God blew the spirit into Adam to give him life!!
Adam was formed from; “Earth & Spirit”!
Adam was formed PERFECT because; Adam was formed from Perfect; Holy EARTH!

LOOK…
2 Peter 3:5
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

The protestant rejects the actions of the WATERS of Baptism, the waters “RE-FORM” the “Dust Of The Earth”!
The Bride takes the >CORRUPTED< “Dust Of The Earth” and reforms this CORRUPTED “Dust Of The Earth” into the form of the second Adam!! She forms it into the Form of Jesus, UNCORRUPTED>>> PERFECT! THEN…
Then** the Groom** sends the “GIFT”! The Groom sends the Holy Spirit so we have TRUE LIFE!
anrmenchaca47 So the Body of the second Adam is also formed with “Earth & Spirit” just as the first Adam was formed with Earth & Spirit!
The body of Jesus is thus equal to Adam in every way except SIN!!
The body of Jesus is also formed with “Earth & Spirit”!

anrmenchaca47 The Catholic has Two, Two, Two parents not just one!
Mother, “The Bride” the Holy Catholic Church!
Father, “The Groom”; God!

The Catholic Church is HOLY… She is Blameless she forms God’ Children!
Ephesians 5:27
and to present her to himself as a radiant church, **without stain **or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

anrmenchaca47 The protestant must reject Eph 5:27 as a lie from the mouth of God!

**THINK: **The Body of Jesus grows by the actions of the HOLY MOTHER the BRIDE!
Mary must also be “Holy without stain Blameless”!

anrmenchaca47 How could the Body of Jesus be formed by a Mother that is both with Stain unholy and stained (Mary) and then also be formed by a mother that is the opposite; “Holy without stain Blameless”???

Mary has to be equal to the Bride of Jesus… BOTH…
Both form the body of Jesus the second Adam!

The Holy Spirit OVERSHADOWED Mary… To prove She was HOLY!!!
God is WITH Mary!!!
No place in the scriptures can you read… “God WAS with Mary”; Or you also can’t read… “God WILL BE with Mary!!” NO PLACE!!!

anrmenchaca47 God is WITH Mary can only mean; "God Was with from the start **and **will ALWAYS be with Mary!!!
Luke 1:28
The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

anrmenchaca47 Protestants reject the purity of Mary because Mary is NOT their MOTHER… Proof is in the scriptures by that is for another post!!
🙂
 
“et quantum ad culpam” is talking about original sin. “Fault” (culpa) is a poetic term for original sin, as in the famous line “O felix culpa!” (O happy fault!) referring specifically to Adam’s sin.

So a literal translation would be:

“Ipsa enim purissima fuit et quantum ad culpam, quia ipsa virgo nec mortale nec veniale peccatum incurrit.”

“For she was most pure, because she, a virgin, incurred neither mortal nor venial sin, and [she was] that much [pure] on fault.”
 
When I watched the debate it seemed like Fr Pacwa and Dr Martin were debating as if they were best friends and just having a discussion while John Ankerberg was the one who kept interrupting which led to an unfair debate with a bias from the “moderator” along with the fact that it was edited big time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top