Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
It doesn't work in reverse. There is none nastier than a Catholic who has become a schismatic. Their hatred of the Church is visceral.
Did you really think of yourself a schismatic? I have no trouble believing prots think some of our Doctrines odd. I do think it surprising they would think themselves schismatic. I was learnt protestants were deeply in error and I was learnt little positive about them. Vatican Two really re-oriented my thinking. How could they be charged with the sin of schism if they had been raised as they were?
In any event, I loved reading your witness, especially the part about the Early Church Fathers. I literally do not understand how one can read them and not see the nascent Catholic Church Scripture identifies.
BTW, my Pastor is a convert from So. Baptism. He read his way into the Church while at UChicago. It was the Early Church Fathers for him also. He is absolutely brilliant. And he knows the Bible inside, out etc
So, how's about responding to St Augustine. You asked for a citation and I provided it
*Peter and the Apostles (Pope and Bishops) are all given the authority to bind and loose. However, only Peter is given the Keys.
Reading Isaias 22 helps others to understand what we Teach about The Keys. I'll post a link for you.
I agree. Actual, as a Baptist, there are several minor things with Luther and Calvin I would disagree with. I think these were carry overs from their Catholic days (like the perpetual virginity of Mary). Whether they actually believed it, I'm not sure but I don't think it was high on the priority list and, given the times and men, I don't think they wished to discuss it.
Are you sayijng you think I am not infallible?
And always and everywhere in the Catholic Chuch, Jesus and the Triune God is the object of our Adoration and Worship.
" If the Child Jesus were born in the "normal" way, why would Isaiah think that qualified as a miracle possible only to God? (See Isaiah 7:14)
See my posts# 676 & 687 above."
Because The Theotokos never knew man. Are you saying He just sort of appeared in that cave in Bethlehem?
"Maybe you missed the preceding discussions. Some of them hinted as a carnal (natural) conception with the divine "seed," as much as the movie suggests natural birth. Christ was neither "conceived" nor born the "natural way." Both are miracles and paradoxes."
I was in court all day yesterday and so did indeed miss much of the discussion. I see what you were talking about and agree.
"Are you sayijng you think I am not infallible?"
I would never say such a thing! Have you hurled any anathemas lately? :)
"St. Gregory Nyssa teaches Mary gave birth without pain. See Catena Aurea Luke, Chapter 1"
I know, I know! I was thinking someone was implying that Christ sort of just appeared in the cave at Bethlehem.
Ah, now we have sola Popes, sola Ecumenical Councils, and sola scriptura. Do I hear sola crackers?
So, your contention is that Luther and Calvin gave sermons on things they didn't actually believe? What other things did they speak about that they didn't actually believe? Isn't preaching a sermon on a topic a priority? I would think that if it was such a low priority, they would have remained silent on the matter. What about Wesley? He was preaching more than two centuries after Luther and Calvin?
Then again, if this is a "minor" thing that you disagree with the Reformers on, then why is it such a major issue to you today?
Jesus came to us through HIMSELF. He used Mary has HIS vessel.
As to going through Mary to find Jesus, that probably stems from the unbiblical Catholic teaching that she is our Mediator.
The Bible says that there is ONE mediator between God and men and that is Jesus.
Protestants do admire Mary. She was a holy innocent young lady when the Holy Spirit came upon her. She loved the Lord, and she is definately a good role model for Catholic and Protestant alike. However, NOWHERE in Scripture are we ever told to pray to her, to hold her up as anything other than a woman blessed by God. She sinned (she called God her Savior. If she hadn't sinned, she wouldn't need a Savior). She was rebuked by the Savior at times. And, ultimately, she turned to her own Son and faded into the background - in SCRIPTURE.
The Catholic Church has developed a doctrine of Mary - OFTEN as a result of a "vision" of Mary.
Herein is the difference between Catholics and Protestants.
The BIBLE is our ultimate authority for doctrine for Protestants. For Catholics it is the Bible PLUS something else - all held up with equal validity.
We can not, as Protestants, embrace the Catholic teaching concerning Mary. Some of it is purely unbiblical (such as the praying to Mary, the story surrounding her birth, her assumption into heaven etc.,). But we do love and admire her.
If the Movie shows her as something other than a humble young woman, it is my personal opinion that such a view is probably not the way it was. The God of Eternity reached out and used her to be His vehicle for becoming a man. If someone can't admire her for that fact alone something is wrong with them.
I don't see "he" in that same verse as Christ. The Septuagint doesn't even say "he" but "you." And it says "watch" (as in "guard"), not bruise or crush.
You are correct (re:#532), there was no "seed" (i.e. sperma), which is why I am wondering why Luke uses the same term for conception as he does for Elizabeth (who did conceive carnally), while John disctintly uses the word "beget."
My point was that the Incarnation was not a "natural" pregnancy, nor can it be thought as "natural" conception lest it be distorted into one, which would lead to a distorted and inconsistent conclusion that Mary gave birth "naturally" (vaginally).
The earliest documents showing that the Church believed in Virginal Birth (i.e. the birth canal was closed, the hymen was preserved) dates to St. Justin Martyr (mid 2nd century). That doesn't mean that it is the earliest.
You now agree that Jesus did not pass through the birth canal?
Scripturally unsupportable.
We've now got some on this thread saying that Jesus was not of Mary's seed. We have some saying that Jesus did not pass through the birth canal. We know that Jesus was not of Joseph's seed.
The question then becomes this: "In what way can we begin remotely to derive the idea that Jesus was fully human?"
This sounds like a gnostic preservation of Jesus "actually not" being human. Anyone who teaches this is unaware of gnostic influences that have entered their theology.
How is this not what John warns us of, "those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh?"
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.