I Love that Woman! My Unworthy Reflections on The Immaculate Conception

Fighting Irish Thomas ^ | 12-8-06 | Tom O'Toole

[topcat54]

Your earlier comment did.

That was not the context of your question. I'll draw you a map.

The content of your question was:

Uh, if you can’t tell me who EXACTLY said it, then I don’t see why I should take the quote at face value to begin with.

This is the way it was reported by the Jansenist Launoy as quoted in various sources.

Your claim, “ if you can’t tell me who EXACTLY said it,” was with reference to the citation of “7. John XXII (or Benedict XII)”. See here. Launoy was the one who expressed some ambiguity on John vs. Benedict. He had nothing to say about the IC/Pelagianism as far as I know.

Now do you get it?

Nevertheless, I stand by the statement that the IC is basically a Pelagian doctrine, having to do with the sinlessness of person born of normal generation. Something not taught in the Bible or by the (true catholic) church fathers.

[topcat54]

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”.

The 15th century is on the cusp. Given the lack of support for the doctrine during the bulk of the medieval period, I stand by my claim.

It is a doctrine not taught by the apostles nor by their (truly) catholic successors.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“That was not the context of your question. I’ll draw you a map.”

It was the context of your previous statement. You said the doctrine was Pelagian did you not? Were you not using a statement by a Jansenist against it? You can twist all you like but those are the plain facts.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“The 15th century is on the cusp.”

Cusp? So “post-medieval” is now “cusp”? So, would early 15th century now become “pre-cusp”?

“Given the lack of support for the doctrine during the bulk of the medieval period, I stand by my claim.”

Your claim has already been proven false. Sixtus IV never reigned in the “post-medieval” period.

“It is a doctrine not taught by the apostles nor by their (truly) catholic successors.”

So you claim. All you can really claim is that you have found no record of their teaching of it and that you deny that those who believe in the doctrine are “catholic”. Coming from a man who can’t tell when “post-medieval” times were that means little to say the least.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.