On the Feast of The Immaculate Conception, your commentary is making Mary very sad. While you might be too smart to figure it all out, remember Bobby Jindal eventually did, and he's a Rhodes Scholar. Post #11
Posted on 12/08/2010 5:59:13 AM PST by mlizzy
The irony here is that Ambrose would be spinning in his grave if a pope told him that he must accept the dogma of the IC.What a joke! He's already in heaven; he knows the truth. And if you can't take Mary's word for it ... what can I say? Nothing!
Finally, it is also interesting that in several apparitions of our Blessed Mother, she herself has attested to her Immaculate Conception: On December 9 (the date for the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception in the Spanish Empire) in 1531 at Guadalupe, Mary said to Juan Diego, "I am the perfect and perpetual Virgin Mary, Mother of the true God, through whom everything lives...." In 1830, Mary told St. Catherine Laboure to have the Miraculous Medal struck with the inscription, "Mary conceived free from sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee." Lastly, when she appeared to St. Bernadette at Lourdes in 1858, Mary said, "I am the Immaculate Conception." --Link.
This is the way it was reported by the Jansenist Launoy as quoted in various sources.
You’re joking, right? Think of the sensibilities of those of us who do not believe in apparitions of Mary on pieces of toast. Mary said no such thing. Mary does not appear to people. These are the imaginative notions of a superstitious lot, sanctioned by a hierarchy willing to give the people what they want in order to keep them in line at all cost.
Being free from the stain of sin is the condition of all the righteous.
“Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” (Ps. 51:7)Mary is nothing special in this regard. Given what Ambrose said elsewhere it’s hard to take his comment about Mary as supporting the IC theory.
So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God. (On the Holy Spirit)
On the Feast of The Immaculate Conception, your commentary is making Mary very sad. While you might be too smart to figure it all out, remember Bobby Jindal eventually did, and he's a Rhodes Scholar. Post #11
Great story! LOL.
Yes, funny! The book has a lot of humor in it.
My communist library probably does not have it.
Mary’s a Packers fan?
She’s an ND fan, of course! But the Packers will adopt her I think.
I'm sure she'll get over it. I'm not opposed to Mary. I'm just can't fathom what her worshipers have done to transform the woman of Scripture into the myth of the RCC.
While you might be too smart to figure it all out, remember Bobby Jindal eventually did, and he's a Rhodes Scholar. Post #11
The apostle Paul taught that the wisdom of Christ did not sync up with the wisdom of this age. Men may place great emphasis in human education, but it doesn't mean much to God.
For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor. 1:22-24)
The apostle Paul taught that the wisdom of Christ did not sync up with the wisdom of this age. Men may place great emphasis in human education, but it doesn't mean much to God.Exactly! But it *does* get in the way for many people. It's the child who can better understand the love of Jesus (and the love He has for His mother).
You wrote:
“This is the way it was reported by the Jansenist Launoy as quoted in various sources.”
So you’re relying on a Jansenists for what you believe to be proof of Pelagianism? Hilarious. You keep undercutting your own evidence and you don’t even seem to realize how you’re doing it.
You wrote:
“Given what Ambrose said elsewhere it’s hard to take his comment about Mary as supporting the IC theory.”
Ambrose apparently didn’t think it was a “theory”. Your inability to deal with what he said doesn’t help your case.
You're confused. Your question to which I was responding had nothing to do with Pelagianism.
There's no objective evidence that Ambrose thought about the post-medieval IC theory at all. I do not suffer from the acute RC propensity to read their modern theology back in into the ancient authors.
Jesus loved His mother. He didn't worship her, or venerate her, or beatify her, or pray to her. Neither should we.
You wrote:
“You’re confused.”
Not in the least.
“Your question to which I was responding had nothing to do with Pelagianism.”
Your earlier comment did. You said: “Clearly it is. Augustine would not teach a Pelagian doctrine like the IC.”
Thus, according to you, the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine is Pelagian. You then relied upon a Jansenist for your information to attempt to refute the Immaculate Conception. Thus, you relied upon a Jansenist for what you believe to be proof of Pelagianism. I clearly am not confused in the least. You apparently are.
You wrote:
“There’s no objective evidence that Ambrose thought about the post-medieval IC theory at all.”
What’s your evidence that the Immaculate Conception was “post-medieval”? If Pope Sixtus IV was defending it in the 15th century, then it is clearly not “post-medieval”.
“I do not suffer from the acute RC propensity to read their modern theology back in into the ancient authors.”
No, you suffer from something much worse. You suffer from teh acute and peculiar Protestant tendency to imagine Protestant doctrines are biblical and were embraced in the early Church. We, on the other hand, are the early Church and always will be. Your johnny-come-lately sect will always be a johnny-come-lately sect.
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.