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

Fallibility ^ | May 1, 2013 | Michael Taylor

[SpirituTuo]

Perhaps you should read this simplified description:

Despite differences in their theology, Southern German cities aligned with Swiss reformer Zwingli joined other German powers following Luther to sign on to the ‘Protest’ as one. They thus became known as Protestants, those who protested.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/reformation/p/proriginprot.htm

And a different take:

The Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, assembled at Speyer in April, 1529, resolved that, according to a decree promulgated at the Diet of Worms (1521), communities in which the new religion was so far established that it could not without great trouble be altered should be free to maintain it, but until the meeting of the council they should introduce no further innovations in religion, and should not forbid the Mass, or hinder Catholics from assisting thereat.

Against this decree, and especially against the last article, the adherents of the new Evangel — the Elector Frederick of Saxony, the Landgrave of Hesse, the Margrave Albert of Brandenburg, the Dukes of Lüneburg, the Prince of Anhalt, together with the deputies of fourteen of the free and imperial cities — entered a solemn protest as unjust and impious. The meaning of the protest was that the dissentients did not intend to tolerate Catholicism within their borders. On that account they were called Protestants.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

[varon]

But simply because they are bigger than I am, does not make them true.

My sentiments as well............

[CynicalBear]

>>...and it says that WHERE, in the Bible, exactly? Chapter and verse, please, since you're an adherent to "sola Scriptura".<<

Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full (plērēs) of grace (charitos) and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people.

Greek - plērēs - Definition: full, abounding in, complete, completely occupied with. [http://biblehub.com/greek/4134.htm]

Greek - charitos - Definition: (a) grace, as a gift or blessing brought to man by Jesus Christ [http://biblehub.com/greek/5485.htm]

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full (plērēs) of grace (charitos) and truth.

The Holy Spirit specifically described those two as full of grace. No such designation was given to Mary.

[paladinan]

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

Oh, come now! Anyone with sense knows that the word "protestantism", in the context of this conversation, refers to the spiritual heirs of Luther, Calvin, and the so-called "Reformation". As per dictionary.com:

Protestant

noun
1. any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
2. an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.
3. (originally) any of the German princes who protested against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which had denounced the Reformation.
4. (lowercase) a person who protests.

I'll give you this, at least: your idea made it to the list as the quaternary definition, behind only three others! :)

Seriously, though... are you joking?

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

FRiend, "Protestantism" is a word coined by Protestants! I certainly didn't invent it... and I certainly didn't slip it in "dictionary.com" while people weren't looking! The fact that you don't care for the word is, frankly, beside the point; it's a well-known, canonical term which is in no way derogatory to Protestants.

Besides... "non-Catholic" would include (at least to some extent) the Eastern Orthodox, who reject Sola Scriptura absolutely, and who believe the vast majority of what the Church teaches... so that term simply wouldn't do. No... using "Protestant" is simple, recognizable, and efficient for the purposes of this conversation... and I'm afraid it's here to stay.

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

I do not automatically (or even readily) assume that Protestant commentary is hostile (at least, not to me or to Catholics, or even to the Church per se); on the contrary, I've have many pleasant chats about theology with Protestants who, while disagreeing with the Church (and with me) about many points, were very civil and respectful and reasonable. This forum, on the other hand, has a paucity of such noble souls among the Protestant population, and it has a startlingly large population of anti-Catholic-Church Protestants whose commentary ranges from the hostile to the disingenuous to the mendacious; it is against THEM that I brace myself (for example) for hostility, whenever anything which savors of the Catholic Church is even mentioned.

[CynicalBear]

>>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.<<

So you would claim that it was not by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that John wrote that?

[Sasparilla]

“...does not make them true.” That “belief” works for you. So be it. To each his own.

[Mark17]

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

I was one of those at one time, but I will not do any swimming. 🙈🙉🙊

[paladinan]

Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full (plērēs) of grace (charitos) and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people.

First of all: where on earth do you get that? My Greek text of Acts 6:8 has the word "pisteos" (faith), rather than "charitos".

Second: the word "kecharitomene" is a perfect passive participle (you can tell by the "stutter" at the beginning of the word), meaning an utter completeness which perdures at the time of the word's mention. If you doubt that, let me show you one other key place where the Bible uses a perfect passive participle:

"When Jesus had received the vinegar, He said, "It is finished" (tetelestai); and He bowed His head and gave up His Spirit." (John 19:30)

Now, if you'd like to suggest that THIS perfect passive participle (which is quite rare in the NT) referred to something "finished somewhat, for now, etc."--and not decisively, completely, and whose effects perdure... well... you're free to do so, but I wouldn't recommend it.

[CynicalBear]

Yeah, I've read many of those attempts. Doesn't work. I equate it to emptying a wagon load of corn.

If I unload 200 bu wagon load of grain into a 1000 bu bin which had been empty I have completely unloaded that wagon. It wasn't the wagon that unloaded itself but it was I who did it. When I completed unloading that wagon it was complete and wouldn't need to be done again. That did NOT fill that 1000bu bin.

[paladinan]

So you would claim that it was not by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that John wrote that?

(??) No. Was my answer so very difficult to understand? I was, rather, pointing to the fact that the comment about "listening to God RATHER than to the Catholic Church (Who speaks with God's voice)" is silly nonsense, just as a statement about "listening to God, RATHER than the angel (who speaks with God's voice)" would be silly nonsense.

[SpirituTuo]

Respectfully, I don’t understand your example and its connection to the thread.

[CynicalBear]

So you didn’t read the site you posted ey? LOL I’ll leave you to wonder.

[CynicalBear]

John was listening to God the Holy Spirit. Your injection of an angel is immaterial.

[Gamecock]

I’ll buy you one too!

[knarf]

This forum, on the other hand, has a paucity of such noble souls among the Protestant population, and it has a startlingly large population of anti-Catholic-Church Protestants whose commentary ranges from the hostile to the disingenuous to the mendacious;

A little redundancy there, eh ?

[SpirituTuo]

The word “grain” doesn’t show up in any of links I posted. Which link are you speaking of, so I may better understand what you are trying to communicate.

[ravenwolf]

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

---

I am not a Catholic but I disagree, just because Jesus had brothers and sisters does not mean a thing.

If Mary had other children why would Jesus have appointed John to take care of her.

They were most likely older step brothers and sisters.

[ravenwolf]

I believe Jesus was Mary’s only child. Jesus went to Jerusalem and stayed there until Mary and Joseph returned and hear him speaking.

---

Probably true the brothers and sisters Jesus had was probably older than him and he was Mary`s only child.

[ravenwolf]

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

---

I agree we should just stick to what the scriptures say, and it is very plain that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

But to say Mary had other children is just adding to scripture, no scripture like that there.

[ravenwolf]

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

---

It makes more sense they were step brothers since they were not Mary`s Children.