Why do we believe in the Immaculate Conception?

In discussing why we believe in the Immaculate Conception, it’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about in the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain — the meaning of "immaculate" being “without stain”. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a fallen nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

While in the West the doctrine has been taught somewhat negatively – the emphasis being on Mary’s sinlessness - the East has tended to put the accent instead on her abundant holiness. The colloquial term for her is Panagia, the All-Holy; for everything in her is holy.

Although this doctrine is not explicitly stated in Scripture (as indeed the Trinity is not explicitly stated), there is much implicit evidence that the New Testament Church believed in the sinlessness and holiness of the Mother of God.

The primary implicit reference can be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is more accurate than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which tend to render the expression "highly favoured daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favoured daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, but rather it extended over the whole of her life. She must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."

However, this is not to imply that Mary had no need of a saviour. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way - by anticipation.

If we consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: she was not simply taken out of the pit; she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become subject to original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Saviour than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner.

St. Luke also provides us with further evidence that the early Church believed in the sinlessness of Mary. In the first chapter of his gospel, he goes to great pains to recount the event of the Visitation in parallel terms to the recovery of the Ark of the Covenant by David in 2 Sam 6. The following contrasts are notable:

1) 2 Sam 6,2 “So David arose and went…set out for Baala of Judah” Lk 1,39 “And Mary rising up in those days, went…to a town of Judah”

2) 2 Sam 6,9 “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” Lk 1,43 “And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

3) 2 Sam 6,14 “And David danced with all his might before the Lord” Lk 1,44 “the infant in my womb leaped for joy.”

4) 2 Sam 6,11 “ And the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months.” Lk 1,56 “And Mary abode with her about three months.”

When taken in conjunction with Gabriel’s earlier promise to Mary that “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee.” (Lk 1,35) in similar language to that describing the descent of the Shekinah on the ark, it is clear that St. Luke considers Mary to be the fulfilment of the type of the Ark of the Covenant.

In Luke’s mind she is the ark of the New Covenant. Just as the old ark contained the Word of God written on stone, the bread from heaven in the form of manna, and the priestly staff of Aaron; so the new ark contains the Word of God enfleshed, the true bread of heaven, and the high priest of the New Covenant.

Up until its disappearance 500 years earlier the ark had been the holiest thing in all creation – even to touch it or look into it was to bring death or plagues on non-Levites. Similarly then, the ark of the New Covenant would have been viewed as the holiest created being by the early Jewish Christians. Mary’s holiness was by the specific design of heaven, just as the old ark was given as a specific design from heaven.

This understanding of Mary as the ark is not just limited to the Lucan tradition. We also find Johannine understanding of this teaching in the Apocalypse. If we omit the medieval chapter and verse numberings, we see that John’s vision, following the judgement of Jerusalem and the Old Covenant, reveals:

“And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his covenant was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:” Apoc. 11,19-12,1

While some commentators see in the figure of the woman a corporate type of Israel or the Church, these can only be secondary meanings as the same vision reveals two other figures which both have primary individual identities: Satan and the woman’s child – Jesus Christ:

Apoc 12,3 “And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: Apoc 12,9 “And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan.”

Apoc 12,5 “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.”

Thus many fathers of the Church as well as recent Popes have clearly identified the ark/woman as Mary, the Holy Mother of God. This should not be surprising as John is here recapitulating the whole of revelation. Not only is he portraying the breaking in of the New Covenant, but of the new creation itself. The early chapters of Genesis where we see the man and woman in conflict with the serpent at the beginning of the old creation, are now recapitulated with the new Adam and the new Eve in conflict with that same serpent, though this time with positive results. Revelation has come full circle with the final triumph of God over the devil through the woman and her seed as first foretold in Genesis 3,15.

This is why early fathers such as St Irenaeus, St Ephraim, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine could clearly identify Mary as the new Eve as well as the Ark of the Covenant. For in a way that Eve in her disobedience could only be physically the mother of all the living, Mary is now revealed as the true mother of all the living in Jesus Christ:

Apoc 12,17 “And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

It is only reasonable to conclude, then, that just as the first Eve was created without sin and filled with sanctifying grace, so the new Eve who was to “untie the knot of disobedience” wrought by the first, should be also so conceived. Or, as Cardinal Newman put it:

“Now, can we refuse to see that, according to these Fathers, who are earliest of the early, Mary was a typical woman like Eve, that both were endued with special gifts of grace, and that Mary succeeded where Eve failed?” Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception. Cardinal John Henry Newman.

Although arguments from authority can often be the weakest form of argument, as Catholics, it is worth finally pointing out that the ultimate reason for believing in the Immaculate Conception is that this doctrine has been infallibly defined as being revealed by God, and as such our salvation depends on adhering to it:

"Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honour of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart." Ineffabilis Deus, Bl. Pope Pius IX

Saint Cleophas (First Century). Saint Cleophas was one of the greatest brothers and husbands and fathers and grandfathers who has ever been in the history of the world. His brother was Saint Joseph, the virginal spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary. ..................................

Stubborn, are you serious in posting this, or do you think CBS might be monitoring this thread?

I doubt if Dan Rather is looking for new scoops right now.

If you seriously believe this is creditable, I have a pile of good PCVM’s, Punch Card Voting Machines here in Florida I'm willing to sell at a reasonable price.

Tell me this is a joke, because I'd hate to mark you off as as, as....well, as ..gullible.

JH :)

How on earth do you think folks were saved before there was an official NT? Before there were enough Bibles to go around? Before folks were literate enough to read? - ANSWER: They were TAUGHT and still are because THATS what Jesus Christ commanded.

Private interpretation of Scripture is condemned - even in your Bible.

Well, for the first 16 or so years, they used the Old Testament and studied prophesies about the Messiah.

They also repeated what the apostles were teaching, and took notes and shared them. Then after that, Paul had sent out his epistle of Galatians around 49AD, then new ones every year or so for the next 15 or 20 years.

Each Church copied them as fast as they got them and passed them on to the next church. A good Copyist could probably turn out 4 or 5 copies a day.

I see no problem what so ever with the Christians not having more then enough to read and study.

Lessons were memorized and written down, and as Paul told them in 2 Tim 2:2, And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Notice that Paul told them only to hear his words that have been verified by two or more faithful witnesses, so there was no traditions or hearsay allowed.

Now as far as your quoting 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
V-21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Peter is talking about prophecies such as God gave to the fathers of old, as he explains in the 21st. verse, and they weren’t from the fathers anyway, they were directly from God..

So please don’t confuse reading and understanding God’s word with prophesying, that’s not what Peter was talking about.

JH :).

***but why is Paul's epistle superior in authority to James, the brother of Jesus and the head of the Church at Jerusalem?***
But I thought you guys didn't believe that Jesus had any brothers, that they were just cousins, because Mary had to stay pure.

First you didn't answer my question: Why do you give Paul's epistle given superior authority to James'? They contradict. Do you just choose the one whose theology you like better?

Second, James was probably Jesus' step-brother.

Third, even if he was Jesus' full brother, by the same mother, Mary, that would merely confirm your literalist Scriptural argument. You would win on that point, but then you would have to turn and read, and apply "Faith without works is dead." That is not "Grace alone does it."
That is the antithesis of "Grace alone does it."

If we're going to be literalists here, then fine, do let's be literalists. The Bible says, in English, Jesus had brothers and sisters. For the sake of argument, I'll go ahead and accept a "Plain meaning rule" in English: Jesus had brothers and sisters (for the sake of argument), they were not step-brothers and step-sisters (for the sake of argument), and therefore (for the sake of argument) you win! Mary wasn't perpetually virgin (for the sake of argument).

Now let's move to other things also literally in Scripture:

"Faith without works is dead" - directly refutes "grace alone".

Prayers and alms to atone for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees).

Laying on of hands to impart the holy spirit.

No remarriage after divorce.

Do you dispute that any of these things are not directly, explicitly, literally in Scripture?

Its no joke. Its what my Bible teaches.

So then am I to assume that you worked this whole scenario out yourself by using the Bible?

Or did you copy and paste it from someone you trusted to have figured it all out ahead of time for you?

You have no idea what your missing, when you refuse to let God's Spirit work through you, so you understand His words, and not what someone else understood.

If at judgment day were asked to explain our belief, what will you do if they don't allow you to quote what others believed?

What would you do if you have to prove what you truly believe from God's word?

It would be great if your not so ingrained with pre-programmed ideas, if you could pick out a subject, ask God to direct you through His Spirit, and using only the Bible, work the whole thing out.

When your satisfied that it aligns with the Bible, then compare it with your Churches teachings and see how they match up.

I don't have a church I consider my own, but I do check other commentaries and beliefs to see how many have come to the same conclusions.

It's the most exciting thing in the world to let Gods Spirit flow through you. and not only to talk to Him and ask questions, but to then just sit and quietly listen to what He has to tell you about your self.

I fear that too many people who depend on the Church to tell them what they should think, miss out on this miracle He has to offer you.

JH :)

***"Faith without works is dead" - directly refutes "grace alone". ***

Let's tackle this one. What is being said is that if you claim to have faith, it will be self evident by the works you do. In other words, it is the grace of God which saves you, and grace alone, but the faith you have in that salvation is evidenced by the good works that you do. If you claim to have faith in God, yet you denigrate others, cheat others, lie about others, gossip, etc. I would question whether you actually have faith at all. However, if you demonstrate the gifts of the Holy Spirit in your life, that backs up your claim of faith. It's simple, really.

***Second, James was probably Jesus' step-brother. ***

There is no Biblical evidence to make this claim. Only speculation.

***Third, even if he was Jesus' full brother, by the same mother, Mary, that would merely confirm your literalist Scriptural argument. You would win on that point, but then you would have to turn and read, and apply "Faith without works is dead." That is not "Grace alone does it."
That is the antithesis of "Grace alone does it." ***

I'm not sure where you are heading with this. It seems to be two different points.

***No remarriage after divorce. ***

The Bible does say that if you do not have a biblical divorce and you remarry, you have committed adultery. I have never said otherwise.

***Prayers and alms to atone for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees). ***

I do believe that this is one of the verses that convinced the Protestants that this book doesn't belong in the Bible. Now, you and I can argue about this and it won't get us anywhere, because I believe in one Bible, you believe in another. I just have to go with what I know about this, as you do.

***Laying on of hands to impart the holy spirit. ***

I do not believe that just the action of laying on of hands gives you the ability to impart the Holy Spirit. That would mean that you would be in control of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is one member of the Godhead, and cannot be controled by anyone. If the Holy Spirit is preparing someone to recieve him, it could be that he allows someone to do the laying on of hands as this way to do it. But the Holy Spirit come upon people all sorts of ways, in His own way, in His own time, not because someone layed hands.

I think this should cover it :>)

Don't place the hope of your eternal salvation in a helpless book that is easily misunderstood which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

My Church, the RCC, was established by God, not man. Plain as that is, you, for whatever reason, choose to deny it - but that does not change His promise that He will remain in His Church till the end of time - which is where I hope to remain till I meet Him.

Perhaps you should read your own history, and then answer my question of what year it was when the Catholic Church traditions, took priority over the Bible.

Augustine. In his treatise to prepare leaders of the church in an understanding of the Bible (0n Christian Doctrine), Augustine wrote: “Among those things which are said openly in Scripture are to be found all those teachings which involve faith, the mores of living, and that hope and charity which we have discussed.”

Augustine This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.

Church fathers such as Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Augustine, Hippelytus, Athanasius, Ambrose, Hilary, and Gregory all taught Sola Scriptura, but this was when the Church was still the Akklesia, or the called out ones, the assembly.

All these men lived prior to your Church becoming the State Church which was pronounced by Emperor Constantine around 312AD, and it began wheeling its power shortly after that.

What you now seem to consider as strange, that some of us believers still live by the word of God, your church was originally founded on. But then found out that with political and military power, it no longer needed the Bible to give them Gods authority, they could now give themselves authority.

Hurricane Jeanne’s banging at our door, and the powers blinking on and off, so I’ll finish up later when things are back to normal.

JH :)

Perhaps you should read your own history, and then answer my question of what year it was when the Catholic Church traditions, took priority over the Bible.

I can trace the history of my church from Pope John Paul II all the way back to St. Peter, the one Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to.

The church does not take priority over the Bible - it never has. I submit that it is the mis-interpretations of solo scriptura folks that have such conclusions. The one you call "Augustine" is a saint and doctor of the RCC. Catholics know him as Saint Augustine.....please, read a little bit about the one you quote - and note the role that the Bible played in his conversion:

Feastday: August 28

This famous son of St. Monica was born in Africa and spent many years of his life in wicked living and in false beliefs. Though he was one of the most intelligent men who ever lived and though he had been brought up a Catholic, his sins of impurity and his pride darkened his mind so much, that he could not see or understand the Divine Truth anymore. Through the prayers of his holy mother and the marvelous preaching of St. Ambrose, Augustine finally became convinced that Catholicism was the one true religion. Yet he did not become a Catholic then, because he thought he could never live a pure life. One day, however, he heard about two men who had suddenly been converted on reading the life of St. Anthony, and he felt terrible ashamed of himself. "What are we doing?" he cried to his friend Alipius. "Unlearned people are taking Heaven by force, while we, with all our knowledge, are so cowardly that we keep rolling around in the mud of our sins!"

Full of bitter sorrow, Augustine flung himself out into the garden and cried out to God, "How long more, O Lord? Why does not this hour put an end to my sins?" Just then he heard a child singing, "Take up and read!" Thinking that God intended him to hear those words, he picked up the book of the Letters of St. Paul, and read the first passage his gaze fell on. It was just what Augustine needed, for in it, St. Paul says to put away all impurity and to live in imitation of Jesus. That did it! From then on, Augustine began a new life.

He was baptized, became a priest, a bishop, a famous Catholic writer, Founder of religious priests, and one of the greatest saints that ever lived. He became very devout and charitable, too. On the wall of his room he had the following sentence written in large letters: "Here we do not speak evil of anyone." St. Augustine overcame strong heresies, practiced great poverty and supported the poor, preached very often and prayed with great fervor right up until his death. "Too late have I loved You!" he once cried to God, but with his holy life he certainly made up for the sins he committed before his conversion.

Saint Augustine of Hippo, Doctor of the Church, was born at Tagaste in northern Africa. His early life was spent in wicked ways. But thanks to the prayers of his holy mother, Saint Monica, at the age of thirty-three Saint Augustine was baptized a Catholic, in Milan, by Saint Ambrose. He returned to Africa and was made Bishop of Hippo. He died at the age of seventy-six. His two great works, the “Confessions” and “The City of God,” are among the most notable writings of all Catholic teachers. The body of Saint Augustine now rests at Pavia, in Italy. Any one of the sayings of Saint Augustine lets us know the golden quality of his brilliant mind. He says that “the heavenly ladder by which God came into the world was the humility of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” Saint Augustine composed, along with Saint Ambrose, the beautiful hymn known as the “Te Deum,” which has twenty-nine verses, and which is often sung in Catholic choirs.

We pray for those suffering the wrath of the hurricanes, good luck

Jeanne has left the state.
We were blessed again, no damage except for a pool full of leaves again. I joked that I had to rake the pool after Ivan, but Jeanne made me get out the leaf blower. Lol

I can trace the history of my church from Pope John Paul II all the way back to St. Peter, the one Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to.

God hears our individual prayers from all over the world, and He sees us who truly believe as His church. Remember what He said, He no longer dwells in temple’s made by hands as he did once a year with Israel.

There is no more one single Church organization that represents God since He dwells within us. We as individuals may attend services in a building, but that doesn’t make the building the Church, it’s still simply a building made by human hands.

Gods church can not have a name, because that would allow anyone whom attends it to call himself by that name, which would not tell you a thing about their relationship with God. Even if you named a Church, “The Church of Gods Believers,” it would still tell you nothing about those who attended.

Gods church is made up of His believers, so everyone in it has to be of God, unless your going to say that everyone who calls themselves Catholic, are saved, and of God. If just one of them are not of God, then it cannot be called Gods true church, for only He knows those who are His.

The church does not take priority over the Bible - it never has. I submit that it is the mis-interpretations of solo scriptura folks that have such conclusions.

If the Bible condemns something, and you ignore and circumvent it by calling it a rich tradition, then you are giving tradition priority over Gods written command.

In my previous post to you, I stated that seven of the early church fathers from 100 to 450ad, believed in Sola Scriptura, and you responded to it by posting the life of Augustine.

I don’t get it? I didn’t question his sincerity, but I would like you to respond to the fact they believed the Bible was sole authority.

JH :)

Glad to hear all went OK with Jeanne.

You mean you can trace names back to Peter with a little imagination, but you can’t trace the church, the Ekklesia, because it ceased to be when your people went against the command of God and turned it into a political organization. See Matthew 21:25-26 Not so, we can trace the Pope, Christ's visible head on earth, all the way back to St. Peter the Rock - upon whom Christ built His Church, of which the gates of hell will not prevail against and will remain till the end of time - either that or Christ never made such a statement.

I don’t get it? I didn’t question his sincerity, but I would like you to respond to the fact they believed the Bible was sole authority.

They did not believe that the Bible was "sole" authority, thats why they became models and authorities in the RCC.

Here is what Saint Augustine says regarding your claim that they believed the Bible was the sole authority, using Mat. 4:6, He says: "Heretics quote Scriptures as the devil does here, in a wrong and forced sense. The Church cites them, like Jesus Christ, in their true sense and to confute their falsehood."

It is on this account, that the Catholic Church wishes persons to come to the study of the most mysterious and difficult book ever published, should bring with them some preparations of mind and heart, convinced that the abuse of the strongest and best food may be converted into deadly poison."

Using Luke 4:10, The Church says: We have the devil here again citing scripture, which shows how very dangerous a thing it is to put the Scripture, in the first instance, indiscriminately into every, even the most illiterate person's hands, without any previous disposition of the mind and heart, by study and prayer. How much more satisfactory must it be to be guided by the church of God, which Christ has promised to secure against all error, and which He comands all to obey.

They did not believe that the Bible was "sole" authority, thats why they became models and authorities in the RCC.

Their belief had little to do with whether or not the Catholic Church adopted them as their own, as long as they didn’t renounce the Church to the point they had to be excommunicated.

There isn’t one early Church father whose beliefs in total would be accepted by your Church today, Augustine included.

Augustine believed that Christ death didn’t opened heaven for everyone, but that only a few were given the gift of faith and the promise of eternal life, in short he believed in predestination, which I’m sure your Church doesn’t agree with today.

This was handled perfectly by both Christ and Satan. Satan tried to spin Gods word to his advantage by quoting the scripture, and Jesus used the scripture to correct him, just as we should be doing today, and if you noticed, Satan accepted the written word as the ultimate truth.

Just think, if Jesus had been a Catholic, He’d have told Satan, we have a tradition to cover that, but since your not a Catholic, you’ll never understand it. Lol

These are just spiritual sounding words that mean nothing to a non-Catholic, try using scripture instead. :)

There is nothing dangerous about anyone quoting scripture, because they’ll usually accept your scripture in rebuttal. It’s those who base their faith on traditions that its hard to discuss anything with because we have no common ground to work from.

JH :)

Another Quote of Saint Augustine: "Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. He can have honor; he can have the Sacraments; he can sing ‘Alleluia’; he can answer, ‘Amen’; he can hold the Gospel; he can have faith in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach; but never, except in the Catholic Church can he have salvation."

Augustine never referred to the church at Rome as the “Catholic Church” a noun, and if he had lived another 50 years, he’d have probably have denounced the whole thing.

He understood that the church Christ established was a group of believers who were the members of the body of Christ, but Christ was the head, and not some man.

Had you been able to read it, when he actually wrote it, it would have probably said, “except in the universal assembly can a man have salvation.” At the time he said it, I may have agreed with him, but your Church is no longer that assembly.

What is the earliest extant copy you have of that quote you posted from Augustine? I’d be interested in seeing it.

I see you’ve followed “Catholic Apologetics 101,” pretty well. You managed to divert the subject from Mary giving birth of four other boys and a couple of girls, then to Sola Scripture, and now finally into your Church History, which is all smoke and mirrors that could easily leave a sane person babbling to him self and cutting out little paper dolls. :)

The subjects has gotten too general for a discussion, but if you care to go back and work on whether or not Mary remained a virgin, I’ll be glad to accommodate you.

JH :)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.