Preparing for Judgment

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 11-12-19 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[rbmillerjr]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm

Here is the references in the catechism with Scripture verses.

The Chapter is 2, “I believe in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God “

Paragraphs 490-493

[ealgeone]

For the Immaculate Conception to be true the following verses in scripture must be negated.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23

When they sin against You--for there is no one who does not sin--and You become angry with them and deliver them to an enemy who takes them as captives to his own land, whether far or near, 1 Kings 8:46

Surely there is no righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. Ecclesiastes 7:20

When they sin against You--for there is no one who does not sin--and You become angry with them and deliver them to an enemy who takes them as captives to a land far or near, 2 Chronicles 6:36

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isaiah 64:6

Do not bring Your servant into judgment, for no one alive is righteous before You. Psalm 143:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8

****

A fundamental principle of Scripture is that it will not contradict itself.

For the IC to be true, it must contradict Scripture and force Scripture to be against itself.

That is not going to happen.

*****

Scripture records only one sinless person.

For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Corinthians 5:21

But you know that Christ appeared to take away sins, and in Him there is no sin. 1 John 3:5

[ealgeone]

I am glad you affirm faith in Christ, and only Christ.

However, it still does not negate the fact that Roman Catholicism has allowed and sanctioned its members to wear and believe the false promises of the Brown Scapular.

[mdmathis6]

You didn’t mention verse 15...Beware of False Prophets!

Which modifies the rest of the chapter. That is what is meant by ‘cherry picking” out of context. Nor do you mention that Chapter 7 actually is a final continuation of the Sermon on the Mount Started way back in chapter5...which also explains some the “words of Jesus” that we are to practice.

So you can’t adequately quote chapter 7 in support of some argument without the over-arching contexts of the previous 2 chapters...they do hang together as Christ’s introduction to the world as to the qualities of the Kingdom of Heaven, the expectations held by God of it’s inhabitants and of the types of folks that won’t be tolerated in said Kingdom.

[af_vet_1981]

You're seriously not trying to advance the notion the IC is in Scripture when the CE clearly says:



"Yes. Everything in Catholic teaching is supported with Scripture."

"Nope.

The Immaculate Conception is not found in Scripture per the Catholic Encyclopedia."

There is scriptural support listed in the Encyclopedia proof text referenced (New Advent ), however it is neither direct nor categorical and stringent proof of the dogma.

[af_vet_1981]

Do babies sin ?

[ealgeone]

Do you have kids?

[ealgeone]

There is scriptural support listed in the Encyclopedia proof text referenced (New Advent ), however it is neither direct nor categorical and stringent proof of the dogma.

I posted the comments regarding those verses. Not one said it was proof of the dogma but will do so again. Rather, they make it clear these verses are not proof of the dogma.

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

Here's what it says about the passage from Luke 1:28 RCs incorrectly say proves the IC:

But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.

Regarding the other texts RCs appeal to the CE says this:

These passages, applied to the Mother of God, may be readily understood by those who know the privilege of Mary, but do not avail to prove the doctrine dogmatically, and are therefore omitted from the Constitution "Ineffabilis Deus".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

****

This still leaves the verses I did post that clearly demonstrate all have sinned, save for Christ.

Either these are true or the Immaculate Conception is true. Only one can be and it has to be Scripture as Scripture does not contradict itself.

The IC contradicts Scripture and is not found in Scripture.

[af_vet_1981]

There is scriptural support listed in the Encyclopedia proof text referenced (New Advent ), however it is neither direct nor categorical and stringent proof of the dogma.

Reading comprehension is fundamental to communication.

Do babies sin ?

[ealgeone]

There is scriptural support listed in the Encyclopedia proof text referenced (New Advent ), however it is neither direct nor categorical and stringent proof of the dogma.

I cite the CE again......These passages, applied to the Mother of God, may be readily understood by those who know the privilege of Mary, but do not avail to prove the doctrine dogmatically, and are therefore omitted from the Constitution "Ineffabilis Deus".

The pope couldn't cite these for support yet that's what you're claiming!

Then there is NO scriptural support for this unless one is reading back into Scripture something that clearly isn't there.

Fundamental theology 101.

Do babies sin?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

[af_vet_1981]

Do babies sin?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Then it is conceded that all have not sinned.

Then there is NO scriptural support for this unless one is reading back into Scripture something that clearly isn't there.

Except 58 posted on 11/22/2019, 1:08:12 PM by ealgeone cited and introduced into evidence
Proof from Scripture

Genesis 3:15

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.

Luke 1:28 The salutation of the angel Gabriel — chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma.

Other texts From the texts Proverbs 8 and Ecclesiasticus 24 (which exalt the Wisdom of God and which in the liturgy are applied to Mary, the most beautiful work of God's Wisdom), or from the Canticle of Canticles (4:7, "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee"), no theological conclusion can be drawn. These passages, applied to the Mother of God, may be readily understood by those who know the privilege of Mary, but do not avail to prove the doctrine dogmatically, and are therefore omitted from the Constitution "Ineffabilis Deus". For the theologian it is a matter of conscience not to take an extreme position by applying to a creature texts which might imply the prerogatives of God.

so by the post's own admission there is some scriptural proof, albeit No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

Thus by the post's own evidence there is scriptural support, but not direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma from Scripture.

[ealgeone]

There are a lot of things one can read back into Scripture. The health/wealth gospel, the prosperity gospel, works based salvation, you can lose your salvation, among other false doctrines.

This is called eisegesis.

It is not exegesis which is pulling out of Scripture the meaning of the passage.

Once one reads a passage one must compare it to the rest of the text to see if one's understanding is correct.

In our disucssion.....the Roman Catholic reads Luke 1:28 as proof of the Immaculate Conception.

Yet, when one reads the verse in the context of Scripture....and this is key...the context of scripture, one finds the RC view of this passage in contradiction to the rest of scripture.

To believe Luke 1:28, or any other verse the RC wants to try to show the IC, one has to ignore the clear verses on the universal sinfullness of mankind.

*****

so by the post's own admission there is some scriptural proof, albeit No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

Only if one is reading back into the passage something they want to see.

I see late night televangelists doing this all the time.

But you will have to note the comment regarding Genesis 3:15.

Rome has incorrectly read this passage as being Mary who crushes Satan.

The more recent translations approved for use by RCs doesn't render the passage this way.

So what do we have?

A bad translation leading to a false dogma.

That's some mighty fine sand the RC house is built on regarding this dogma.

Note also the article says these other verses you're trying to hang the dogma on were not included in the pope's proclamation of the IC. I guess there are even some limits on how far Rome stretches things.

IF these passages did support the IC, the pope would have included them. That they weren't included is telling.

*****

Do babies sin?

>>Irrelevant to this discussion.<<

Then it is conceded that all have not sinned.

Nope. Nothing is conceded.

However, that is a different discussion than this one; but the question is answered by all have sinned.

[af_vet_1981]

However, that is a different discussion than this one; but the question is answered by all have sinned.

Nonsense; the question is relevant and now finally answered that babies sin, which is absurd. What sin do babies commit ?

[ealgeone]

Don't know the specifics but all have sinned.

I notice you're doing anything to get away from the discussion of the Immaculate Conception.

Can't say I blame you as to how the discussion is going.

[af_vet_1981]

Don't know ...

Ah, the kernel of truth ...

I notice you're doing anything to get away from the discussion of the Immaculate Conception.

The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

[ealgeone]

Af, you can post all the Roman Catholic catechism if you want to.

The simple fact is the Immaculate Conception is in contradiction of Scripture. Further it is not found in Scripture.

It is not supported by the "unanimous consent" of the ECFs as noted by the same source (catholic encyclopedia).

The IC goes against the two very things the dogma claims for support.

Much of the Marian narrative Rome uses is from the Protoevangelium of James....which was banned from reading and was never considered a valid writing.

******

>>Don't know ...<<

Ah, the kernel of truth ...

Let's quote it correctly. I've noticed a number of Roman Catholics like to slice and dice quotes when the argument goes against them.

Here's my full and correct statement:

Don't know the specifics but all have sinned.

[ealgeone]

Roman Catholics call Mary, "most holy Mary" or "most holy virgin" in some of their writings.

But here's a problem from Rome....they apply this terminology to others. I saw this in another thread. Notice the terminology: most holy virgin Caecilia

Same terminology.

Does this mean Caecilia was also "immaculately conceived"?

*****

This is what happens when you start getting away from Scripture and being the worship/adoration of the created over the Creator.

[af_vet_1981]

Let's quote it correctly.

The purpose is to analyze it for truth.
Therefore with:
Don't know the specifics but all have sinned.

The "but" implicitly negates the phrase preceding it.

If one believes that "all have sinned" refers to all human beings, one either denies Jesus was human or that he was sinless. Either would be heretical views.

If one holds that babies are not human beings, that babies personally sin within the womb before birth, or that babies personally sin after birth, it is an absurdity.

Take a stand.

[af_vet_1981]

But here's a problem from Rome....

• Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
• (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
• Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
• And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
• By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
• Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
• To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
• First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Romans, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses one to eight,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[ealgeone]

>>Let's quote it correctly.<<

The purpose is to analyze it for truth. Therefore with:

>> Don't know the specifics but all have sinned.

The "but" implicitly negates the phrase preceding it.

I hope law is not your field.

If one believes that "all have sinned" refers to all human beings, one either denies Jesus was human or that he was sinless. Either would be heretical views.

Are you really this obtuse? Or just trying to be argumentative?

Before we continue this exchange, go back and re-read my #62 post.

I make a clear distinction between the who has sinned and Who has not.

If you cannot see that then you're being beyond disingenuous. There are three of you on the RC side who attempt to do this. It's a poor witness for your denomination....but I've come to expect this.

But I get it...your argument in favor of the IC has been refutted.

This is why I knew you were bringing up the "do babies sin" question.

It's a poor attempt to change the topic.

I have taken a stand.

Now, it's time for you to be honest in the discussion.

Admit your attempt at deceit and we can move on. If not, this conversation is over.

Ball's in your court.