Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I wrote that it certainly wasn't thought so in any de Fide way before 1854 OR we wouldn't have waited until 1854 to get the encyclical.
I said further that, as far as I know, the encyclical does not deal with the necessity of the Immaculate Conception for the Incarnation. I could be wrong.
I have repeatedly said that it is hard to discuss whether God could have done something a different way. Presumably whatever way He chooses is the best way.
You do know what de Fide means, right?
If pressed I would say I don't see how it could be necessary. I do see how it is "fitting." I don't see how we can meaningfully say, "God didn't have to do that."
Veneration is an act of honoring.
I’m still waiting for someone to tell me if Jesus Christ knew that Mary herself was immaculately conceived. Seems if He did, He could have given her that rightful place of veneration at
1). the wedding at Cana, He didn’t exactly called Mary ‘Blessed’. “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine (NOT OUR) hour is not yet come.” (John 2:4).
2). And who can forget the ‘Blessed” Mary of Luke 11:27,28. “And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.” (Luke 11:27)
Here it is. The moment of TRUTH. The moment all Catholicism could rest it’s Mary doctrine on.
All He needs to do is confirm the words of the woman of the company....
“Yea RATHER, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”
......crickets......
There goes the doctrine of Mary...and in its place THE WORD OF GOD...
INDEED.
However, some folks can’t or won’t handle THE TRUTH . . .
YES and it will get worse. On 9/11/01 who would believe in seven years the USA would have an unvetted president named Barack Hussein Obama who said ‘57 states’ and ‘my muslim faith’ BEFORE the election and his previous ‘associates’ were known.
DECEPTION HAS INCREASED. I’m sure all who voted for him believed they couldn’t be fooled.
INDEED.
ZUI4DUO1
INDEED
The FLAW . . .
IS IN THE LABEL.
it is
DECEPTIVE,
SEDUCTIVE,
MANIPULATIVE,
A GROSS DISTORTION
A FALSEHOOD
PERIOD.
“Yea RATHER, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”
For my region of the Proddy side . . .
OF COURSE NOT.
God is not that limited.
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.
INDEED.
Not logical from the Scripture.
The EMPHASIS was on
HEARING AND DOING The Word.
Period.
The only requirement in Scripture about Mary was that she was a virgin. Period.
Her sinful state doesn't and didn't enter into the picture.
God says NOTHING bout the necessity of the virgin being without sin.
Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
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.
INDEED.
EXCEPT, OF COURSE,
IN THE
VATICAN ALICE IN WONDERLAND SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AND REALITY MANGLING.
Blessedness is addressed elsewhere in scripture. Veneration is an act of honoring. Worshiping Mary would be a violation of Catholic teaching.
Exodus 20:12
“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
Deuteronomy 5:16
“Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
d-fender: “Veneration is an act of honoring.”
Oh?
Was I supposed to venerate my parents? Does that mean I should have made statues of them and placed candles in front of them to light?
Name churches after them? Claim they were perfect? Pray to them now that they’re dead?
Who knew?
Did Jesus Christ call others to venerate, honor, WHATEVER, Mary? No. THAT’S the point, D-. Not that veneration is an act of honoring, but less than worshipping, or more than dulia, or less than latria.. or WHATEVER. The point is, He said “Yea, RATHER..” NOT “Yea”. It’s about hearing the word of God, and keeping it, not Mary. Or at least that’s what Christ said. Want to argue veneration/honor/worship/dulia/hyperdulia/latria with Him?
What promise in the NT says that a 'self-proclaimed' church can 'deduce the plan correctly'? You have simply backed the fallacy up one step.
"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."
Depends on how you define 'original sin'. He certainly had to be able to submit the sinful nature to perfect obedience to the Father in order to be victorious. The accuser's invasion was never 'successful'. God is eternally sovereign.
"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."
The adversary, sin and death were defeated by His perfectly obedient life. The victory was won when He laid His life down on the cross, not afterward by 'whupping the adversary in his den'. In Christ, there is no 'battle against' anything only 'perfect obedience to' the Father. You have it backwards.
As an aside, but applicable to this (and every) argument:
The rise of Pharisee-ism was predicated by one single flaw: The Pharisees came to believe there were TWO Torahs delivered to Moses on the mount...
One, the written Torah, with the "Big 10" written in stone - directly by the finger of God Himself - and the rest brought forth through Moses as the whole of the Torah.
The second, the belief that there was more that was delivered to Moses than what he actually wrote down.
This they called the "Oral Law," passed "mouth to ear," according to authority... and it is the very foundation of the Pharisaical tradition. Upon this foundation, the "wisdom" of famed Rabbis were laid, according to the majority opinion among the authorized, and within a few hundred years, a religious system was built which was so burdensome and against salvation, that the Christ called it a "pit of vipers."
I would submit that it is in this light that one must apply the words:
Hear and Obey - Trust in the LORD with all your heart and LEAN NOT on your OWN UNDERSTANDING;
What God intended in that case (the Old Covenant), He most certainly committed to the pen of His agent, that His words would be clearly preserved. God does not change. Why would He treat the New Covenant any differently?
None of the premises were proven, only asserted. You seemed to place a special requirement on my restated premise that you were not requiring for the other premises.
Since my restated premise was not proven to be unnecessary to the argument it changes the nature of the argument.
If the simple syllogism is true but by adding the additional premise makes it false does that negate the simple syllogism?
OK this is fantastic to know roamer_1! Thank you for this! This SHOULD finally lay the argument to rest. But...
Intelligent dialog is really difficult when you are reduced to about 20% of your vocabulary. It gets old when so much of the dialog that does take place is over the correctness of the definitions that the Church uses to define Church dogma. Instead of getting responses along the lines of "I understand, but disagree", we are force fed a stream of "no it doesn't mean that, it means something different".
2. What is meant by "unanimous" consent of the fathers?
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.