Why Rome Can Only Appreciate, Rather than Prove the Immaculate Conception

Fallibility ^ | May 1, 2013 | Michael Taylor

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Raised in the Church. Come from a Catholic family. Love my church. Love attending Mass. Agree with about 90% of Catholic teachings. I’m a volunteer at my church. 4th degree member of the Knight of Columbus. There over a billion Catholics in the world today. We don’t all think exactly the same way. Not all of us mindlessly marching in goose step with every whim of the Vatican hierarchy.

[CynicalBear]

>>Here’s a nice apologetic on this subject:<<

That contains false information about the translation of the Greek kecharitomene. In no way can the Greek be translated to include "full of grace" which has been shown multiple times on these threads. Only two people have ever been called "full of grace" and they were Jesus and Stephen.

[paladinan]

I am a loyal and faithful Catholic who practices my faith.

I don't doubt your sincerity.

And you pointed to an issue which is irritating and true. The Church’s tendency to make up things which are not based on fact. The circumstances surrounding the birth of Mary are not mentioned in the Bible. So why make up things we don’t know?

You've fallen into the "sola Scriptura" trap, perhaps without realizing it. Listen to the premise behind your statement: "if it isn't in the Bible, it can't be true or worthy of belief"... which is an unbiblical idea, since the Bible doesn't teach "sola Scriptura" ANYWHERE. It's a tradition of sinful, fallible men (e.g. Luther, Calvin, etc.) who were pursuing the "anything but Rome" mindset. Don't be fooled into granting a false premise.

This perpetual virgin stuff is equally annoying. The Bible mentions that Mary was a virgin at the time of her conception of Jesus (Luke), but it stops there. It doesn’t go any further than that.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but: belief in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not optional; it's "de fide"--obligatory for belief for all faithful Catholics. See the Catechism, 496-498,510.

Beyond this, see above, re: the ridiculous error of "sola Scriptura".

The Bible does say Mary was married to Joseph and that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

The Bible also says "not to call any man on earth your father" (cf. Matthew 23:9), but it has St. Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) reminding an entire local church (the Corinthians) that they "do not have many fathers. For I [Paul] became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel". Some parts of the Bible are easy to misunderstand (especially if the reader is "sure" that he isn't misunderstanding!), which the unstable and ignorant distort and twist, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). This is why we, as Catholics, cannot simply run off with every private interpretation we see or think (whether from ourselves, or from Catholic or Protestant friends); we need an infallible guide to tell us what these things do NOT mean.

It is therefore safe to assume that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage.

You'd be going against the teaching of every last Father of the Church (all of whom lived far closer to the actual events than you and I do), if you assume that. Rather, it's safe to assume that, after carrying the King of Kings in her womb, the Blessed Virgin would have no desire to settle for mere human intercourse. Do some research (on some orthodox Catholic sites); the resources are plenty.

The Lord commands us to be fruitful and multiply and Mary and Joseph did just that.

That's a general vocation--not an all-inclusive one, as Jesus Himself makes clear: "[...]there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. (Matthew 9:12). St. Paul also makes this clear (though he says that celibacy is voluntary and good, but not a requirement): see almost all of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7).

Do you see how some Protestant (and other private ideas) can seem plausible for a while, but can be proven false, upon a bit of closer examination? The Church is here to guide us, not to make us miserable; just as guardrails are there to protect us, not to restrict our driving freedoms.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Thank you very much for not doubting my sincerity. If forced to choose between sola scriptura and sola ecclesia, I will choose sola scriptura. The Church has made mistakes. The Bible never has.

[CynicalBear]

The man is listening to God rather than to the Catholic Church. Why do you fear that?

[CynicalBear]

I pray God continues to enlighten your mind and spirit.

[SpirituTuo]

I am sorry that was your experience. The defining document is the Catechism, and it speaks clearly.

It is certainly your choice to believe as you wish, but if the priest said what he said, he was in error.

St. Bede (d. 735) refutes both of the things the priest said, at Mark 3: 31-36.

The Bible, as written, was in several different original languages. It wasn’t until St. Jerome translated the books of the Bible into Latin. From there, we read the Bible in our own language. Without context, any number of interpretations arise. Without the teaching authority of Church, these incorrect interpretations give rise to false doctrines. As mentioned above, false statements about the perpetual virginity of Mary existed in the 7th and 8th century.

It may be worth your time to read this book (http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/Home+Page/BOOKS/Bible+Study/DOES+THE+BIBLE+REALLY+SAY+THAT.axd) and find a good study Bible.

The Catholic Church has been teaching the fullness of Christian faith since the beginning. Any question you may have has likely been asked in the 2000 years since the Resurrection. I encourage to ask them! Ask your pastor. Also, consider reading catholic.com and ewtn.com.

[paladinan]

That contains false information about the translation of the Greek kecharitomene. In no way can the Greek be translated to include "full of grace"

...and it says that WHERE, in the Bible, exactly? Chapter and verse, please, since you're an adherent to "sola Scriptura". Surely no one is expecting us to take mere Protestant assertions as fact, right?

which has been shown multiple times on these threads.

"Asserted", yes. "Shown", no. Repetition of guesswork and opinion, despite the opinion of Goebbels, does not transform it into a fact.

Only two people have ever been called "full of grace" and they were Jesus and Stephen.

Based on which Greek lexicon, which translation of the Bible, and which verses? And would you be so kind as to explain whether your Greek lexicon (and your interpretations based on it) are infallible and sure, or not?

[knarf]

"Once you are a member of a denomination that believes itself to be incapable of teaching error ... "

OR

Once you are a member of a denomination that believes IN itself .

Which seems to be more the case ...

I believe me, therefore I am right.

[knarf]

Your tagline is apropos ... Thank You for your reply.

[Mark17]

I first learned that Jesus had brothers and sisters in a Bible study class taught by a Catholic priest in a Catholic church.

Two of those half brothers of Jesus, James and Jude, wrote books in the New Testament.

[paladinan]

If forced to choose between sola scriptura and sola ecclesia,

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, by "sola ecclesia"; can you expand on that? I'm not confident enough in my guesses to assume that it's a direct parallel with "sola Scriptura".

I will choose sola scriptura.

That is not an option which is open to anyone who values logic. "Sola Scriptura" presupposes that we know the exact contents of "Scriptura" (i.e. the Bible), which Protestants do *not* (they threw out 7 entire books and pieces of at least 2 others); it presupposes that the Bible can be interpreted without any significant error by any given person (though the Bible says that this is not true--cf. 2 Peter 3:16-17; Acts 8:31, etc.), and it supposes that the Bible itself teaches that "the Bible alone is the norm of faith" (which it does not).

Further: "sola Scriptura", which insists that "nothing outside of the Bible [whatever they think that to be] is binding on the Christian conscience", is NOT IN the Bible (and is therefore not fit as a rule to bind your approach to the Bible). One might as well elect a square circle as President of the United States. (Actually, on second thought, that'd be quite a bit better for the country! But I digress...)

The Church has made mistakes.

It depends on how you mean that. If you mean that "people in the Church--even popes and other clergy--have made mistakes (or even sinned grievously)", that would be true. If, rather, you mean that "the Bride and Body of Christ, promised to be preserved indefectible by the Holy Spirit, has made mistakes", then that is not true. Not one of her solemn teachings has contained error, not one of them contradicts any other (or anything in Scripture), and not one has been substantially changed or repealed, in 2000 years. I daresay that Protestantism does not, and cannot, make that same claim--for numerous reasons.

The Bible never has.

Just as an exercise: from where did the Bible (and the list of its true contents) come?

[SpirituTuo]

I am not knowledgeable in koine Greek. However, I found this article interesting.

http://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1197&context=marian_studies

It is a scholarly piece.

[WVKayaker]

Oh sweet Mother Mary, lead all of your children to ...

She's dead. jobim! If there is a Mary leading anyone, she is leading them NOT to Jesus, but more likely ...

[knarf]

Neither Luther nor Calvin "created" "protestantism"

By definition, protestantism is the state of being in protest (in this case, religious) ... a state which most all people are guilty

If you actively work against obama ... you are a protestant

Perhaps you should stop using a mis-used word and start using "non-Catholic"

It is one who is not a Catrholic that will state things the Catholic interprets as hostile .. thus "protestant"

[Gamecock]

St. Bridget of Sweden (d. 1373) claimed that Mary appeared to her and personally confirmed the Immaculate Conception.

And Roman Catholics like to make fun of Pentecostals!

[Alex Murphy]

KEYWORDS: mary; moacb; salvation; sin; worship; Click to Add Keyword

ROTFL

[paladinan]

The man is listening to God rather than to the Catholic Church. Why do you fear that?

That's both a false dilemma, and a silly absurdity; St. John, on Patmos, might as well have said that he "will listen only to the voice of God, and not the voice of any silly angel", if this idea (which you typed) were implemented.

In short: only a Protestant with fierce and irrational anti-Catholic biases could even conceive of saying such a thing.

[SpirituTuo]

Again, not a scholar, but another interesting piece.

https://books.google.com/books?id=t_JtmrGDLB4C&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=kecharitomene&source=bl&ots=AuCXrYTzzT&sig=2zDRwhnJ1QXWf_HrWZ0CI40gkAY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hGsUVaPTM4ehNvHlgNgJ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgo#v=onepage&q=kecharitomene&f=false

[Gamecock]

If I ever meet you I’ll buy you a beer. I admire a Catholic with integrity.