Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[metmom]

What we see is this kind of Catholic *logic* (for lack of a better term)

Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Jesus was sinless.

Mary was immaculately conceived.

FAIL.......

[the_conscience]

You’d have to prove that premise first.

And why would that one need to be proved first and not the other premises?

the EO accept the logic of this syllogism, but consider the Immaculate Conception false or not proven.

Where's the oneness?

[wmfights]

They have no power to save is so correct and it is pretty obvious that what they are searching for is disciples for themselves.

Well said.

[D-fendr]

I should have added that if these verses are Jesus are seen as some see them, the Jesus would have violated the commandment: “Honor your father and your mother…”

[prot]

"To be "discredited" by fools is nothing to be ashamed of. It's to be expected. And in the long run, it means nothing.

" I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust." -- Psalm 91:2

"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." -- 1 Corinthians 11:19

Surely the good doctor recognizes that his argument and Bible texts work as well against him as they do for him?

[don-o]

For example, the EO accept the logic of this syllogism, but consider the Immaculate Conception false or not proven.

Or perhaps, not knowable. We EO's do quite a bit of that. Gimme that old apophatic religion!

[smvoice]

I don’t believe He was dissing or denigrating Mary either. But He CERTAINLY was NOT referring to her BLESSEDNESS, worthy of veneration or worship either.

[Mad Dawg]

Did anybody hear the WORD or keep it more carefully and lovingly than Mary did?

I think Jesus was (rightly -- duh) saying cautioning all of us against thinking that we were somehow less called, less blessed, less whatever than anybody who had a blood relationship to Him.

It seems so silly to say this big duh, but Jesus was an AWESOME spiritual teacher. HE pierced to the division of bone and marrow, fer shur! And anyone whose pious outcry has a hint of "poor li'l ol me" (with the underburden of "So I don't have to try real hard because I'll never have the special advantages of somebody else") Jesus would skewer in a heartbeat.

We all are given grace to hear and keep the word of God (unless we believe in double predestination), so we can't go back to our self-pity and inertia.

I preached on this. How come I don't get to be immaculately conceived and all that? it's not FAYur!

Short answer: mary has her vocation and I have mine. Mine suits me to a T. I compared the whole thing to wondering why I don't get to wear Tony lama boots just because they're not in my size. And then, when I find a pair of boots that FIT .... (I have weird feet) it's WONDERFUL! I don't want to wear Mary's vocation. I want to wear the one God set apart for ME! I feel good, I look good, I can do good because I'm wearing MY boots, not hers.

[presently no screen name]

Mary is the Mother of Jesus - SO Mary is the Mother of God the Son of God.

YOU are human reasoning/understanding and we are told NOT to lean unto our own understanding.

Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." Jesus replied, "But even more blessed are ALL who HEAR the word of God and OBEY it."

Hear and Obey -
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and LEAN NOT on your OWN UNDERSTANDING;

[smvoice]

He honored Mary. He didn’t call for her to be venerated, now did He? And those are 2 EXPLICIT Scriptures. That leaves NO room for IMPLICIT meanings about Mary.

[the_conscience]

I’m not arguing against the natural language logic. I’m arguing that unstated premises change the meaning of the conclusion.

[prot]

"The whole question is moot (in my mind, at least) since God knew from eternity that Mary would say “Yes” to His wonderful Plan. He preserved her from original sin according to His own designs because it was supremely fitting for His Son to be born of an immaculate Virgin."

If Mary had no 'original sin', then Christ had none and He could not be the perfect sacrifice for all of humanity (but only for Mary alone) because He could not have conquered 'original sin'.

"That was His Plan. Who are we to murmur against God and try to second-guess Him? That would be the ultimate in folly."

Doesn't that assume that you have deduced the Plan correctly in the first place? Is that not folly in itself?

[D-fendr]

And why would that one need to be proved first and not the other premises?

All premises have to be necessary and, either: self-evident (axomatic) or proven (true).

Your premise has been shown to be unnecessary, irrelevant to the syllogism.

Which of the other premises to see as neither self-evident nor true or proven.

[D-fendr]

Sorry, should be:

Which of the other premises do you see as neither self-evident nor true or proven.

[Mad Dawg]

So the problem with my argument is that it makes sense?

But, if I accept your premises, YOUR argument makes sense. Does that make it bad?

And I am not leaning to My understanding or to human understanding because I trust God's promise to his Church. So I think to abide by the decrees of Ephesus and Chalcedon is exactly to hear and obey the Word of God

I don't think the definitions are any more the will of man or traditions of men than are the theological conclusions of the Council of Jerusalem. It seems to me that council provides precedent for the subsequent councils. So, to me, trusting God to speak at Ephesus and Chalcedon is hearing the word of God and keeping it.

[D-fendr]

I’m arguing that unstated premises change the meaning of the conclusion.

Conclusions in formal logic are either true or false. Meaning taken from the conclusion is another thing to discuss outside the proof.

If a premise is not necessary it *should* be unstated.

[presently no screen name]

FAIL indeed. Immaculate Conception (the name of my grammar school) BTW - is not biblical. We are told Jesus had siblings and Joseph wasn’t call to a life as a monk but a husband to Mary.

Scriptures tells us Joseph was not intimidate with Mary UNTIL AFTER the birth of Jesus.

It can’t be said enough that the RCC teachings are in direct opposition to God’s Word. Thus, they cannot make any claim as being HIS CHURCH. You can’t have heresy and have Jesus involved.

HIS CHURCH hear and obey HIS WORD alone.

[smvoice]

Hi, you! You always show up right on cue. What is the role of nuns in the Catholic Church? And I don't want to hear about rapping knuckles of unruly kids. I know there is more to it than that. ;)

[D-fendr]

To be more correct:

Conclusions in formal logic are either true or false - or unproven or improper in form, etc.

Meaning taken from the conclusion is another thing to discuss outside the proof - the original proof. If meaning is another conclusion, then it is subject to the same requirements as the first.

[Mad Dawg]

As to folly, we trust what we read in the NT about promises to the Church. So it’s not so much Moi who got it right, but God speaking in his Church. FWIW.

As to Jesus and original sin. He doesn’t have to be infected, does He, to conquer it. The first Satanic invasion was successful. God comes, as Jesus, into occupied territory and successfully repels all the adversaries assaults.

Then, in dying, he enters the adversaries den and whups him there. Before Jesus only sinners were in Sheol. Hell and death had never seen anything like THAT before and were confounded and put to flight.