DR. PUSEY ON THE WORSHIP OF MARY IN THE CHURCH OF ROME

Sword and the Trowel ^ | 1866 | Charles Spurgeon

[Petronski]

Therefore Mary had to have abounding sin before she could have received abounding grace. Right???

Romans 5:20 doesn't support that.

[Religion Moderator]

Great. Knock yourself out! That is the purpose of “open” threads.

[Running On Empty]

“I’m here to take a strong stand against a perversion of my beliefs”.

Thank you, sandyeggo.

Pax Christi

[Religion Moderator]

I am hair-triggered on "hate mongering" materials and probably provoked you by raising the flag on the KKK. Sorry. But I assure you that you are free to defend your beliefs on the "open" threads.

If you are interested, click here for a list of known "hate mongering" websites.

[Uri’el-2012]

What about the genocide of Irish Catholics under the Puritan Protestant Oliver Cromwell in 1649-1651?

More than 1/4 of Ireland’s population either died or was forced to be refugees. ........

139 posted on May 15, 2008 9:31:53 AM MDT by ChurtleDawg

Cromwell when he took the lands and possessions of the King,
one of them was possession of all Ireland which was granted
to the King of England by the Pope for running a crusade or
something.
All of Ireland was given to the Pope by "Saint" Patrick.

So the poor people of Ireland have been abused for centuries by the the Papacy.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Petrosius]

So Protestant English killing off Catholic Irish is the fault of the Pope?!?

[Huber]

"Amid all the mischief which Pusey has done, it is well to note and acknowledge whatever service he may in this case render to truth. The headings of the paragraphs are ours; the quotations are given as they stand."

Many of us would have similar sentiments regarding Spurgeon.

[Titanites]

I'm here to take a strong stand against a perversion of my beliefs.

Your stand is much appreciated by this Catholic.

[Uncle Chip]

I believe that was Pope Adrian IV who in a Papal Bull gave Ireland to Henry II, then King of England.

[Huber]

Thanks to narses for the ping.

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

[An interesting 1866 polemic by C.H. Spurgeon with the intent of performing theological judo on the Oxford Movement. --Huber]

[Alex Murphy]

Catholics DO NOT believe that Mary was conceived in a non-sexual way and you know it.

Actually, no I didn't - I confess to knowing next-to-nothing about the Catholic view of Mary's conception, except that IIRC she was "conceived without sin". Given the Protestant view of what that phrase means, you might understand how I could misunderstand the Catholic view. FWIW, this just hasn't been an area that I've given any focus to. But now you can say that I know something about it. And a special thanks to OpusatFR for his post 87 and the definitions therein.

Oh and wagglebee, no offense taken (per your #84).

[wagglebee]

An interesting 1866 polemic by C.H. Spurgeon with the intent of performing theological judo on the Oxford Movement.

Excellent point!

I wonder how many here who seem so intent on bashing Catholics that they will insult the Mother of God realize that this "manifesto" was as much an assault on Anglicans as it was on Roman Catholics.

Perhaps someone might explain how it is that Drs. Spurgeon or Pusey is anymore qualified to interpret Scripture than the Catholic Church.

[wagglebee]

Thanks. I just wanted to clarify that Catholics DO NOT believe that the actual method by which Mary was conceived differed from the norm, the Immaculate Conception ONLY relates to her soul.

[Petronski]

Perhaps someone might explain how it is that Drs. Spurgeon or Pusey is anymore qualified to interpret Scripture than the Catholic Church.

Oh, that's an easy one. They're not Catholic!

</sarc>

[Uri’el-2012]

That's the stupidest defense of Cromwell I've ever seen.

It is not a defense !

it is just a statement of fact for understanding.

It provides some insight into the thinking of people who are deemed "infallible"
and claim to shepherd G-d's congragation.

Be they of the "church" of Rome or the "church" of England.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua