Posted on 02/03/2015 9:37:18 PM PST by Morgana
“And there is no problem linking to one’s own reply posts, since there is dispute involved.” should have been “And there is no problem linking to one’s own reply posts, since there is NO dispute involved.”
I try to play by the rules on these forums.
I'd hate to have your job!
I'll learn how to make the hyperlinks work to make things easier going forward!
Thank you for your support.
I believe that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant because the Catholic Church teaches that they are inspired and inerrant.
I believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary because the Catholic Church teaches the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.
The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary contradict nothing in Scripture, and they are reasonable in themselves.
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
That right there in itself should cause the rcc to stop teaching this false doctrine.
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.
We won't go into the incorrect translation of Luke 1:28 which should be Greetings, you favored with grace, or Greetings, favored one.
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.
In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter....
But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science.
This sounds eerily similar to Montanism. You will recall that it believed in ongoing revelation. Sure sounds like what the rcc is espousing with this doctrine and the assumption. You will recall it was one of the reasons the early church wanted a written canon.
For the record, I'm not a Catholic, just a non-denominational Christian, and I worry about what many of the commenters are doing to themselves with their comments and the thoughts and emotions behind them.
As crazy as this might sound, I hope, for their sakes, that their hearts are pure and that one day they will seek forgiveness.
Maybe ignorance can be an excuse for some? I've recently begun to read but a tiny little piece of the vast collection of writings and accounts of Mother Mary and her active role in our salvation.
Personally, I'm grateful. Bless you, Mother Mary.
I believe that the Scriptures are inspired, and inerrant, because the Catholic Church teaches that they are.
I believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary because the Catholic Church teaches them.
The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption do not contradict anything in Scripture, and are reasonable doctrines in themselves.
I believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary because the Catholic Church teaches them.
The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption do not contradict anything in Scripture, and are reasonable doctrines in themselves.
The catholic church also instigated the Inquisition. You believe in the killing of people who disagreed with Rome? The rcc was advocating that also.
You believe indulgences should be sold? The rcc taught that.
You believe everyone has to be subject to the pope and do what he says?
You believe you can lose your salvation? The bible notes if you can lose it, you can't get it back. Are you sure you believe this? The rcc teaches this also.
I leave you with this from your own catholic apologists.
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
It is necessary to distinguish between dogmas that have been solemnly and formally defined by the Church, and actions taken by someone here or someone there who happened to be Catholic.
The notion of “once-saved-always-saved” has to be among the top five moronic beliefs concocted in the last 200 years. It flies in the face of reason, and it is not taught anywhere in Scripture. Intellectually and morally, it is a low point in the history of the maimed, deformed, crackpot versions of Christianity that have been loosed on the world by Satan since the Reformation.
If catholics really believe you can lose your salvation, then every catholic should be camping out at the door of their priest and constantly confessing sins. Every single waking minute of the day, month and year. 7/24/365
The fear the catholic must live in not knowing if they are "in a right relationship with God" at death must be paralyzing.
Amazing that catholicism ignores Ephesians 1 where the Bible notes that "you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given to us as a pledge of our inheritance with a view to the redemption of God's own possession to the praise of His glory." I cannot find anywhere in the Bible where we are ever unsealed; either by Him or our own efforts.
The Protestant obsession with “assurance” comes from Luther’s own neuroses.
Catholics do not live in the kind of fear you cartoonishly describe, because salvation cannot be “lost” in the manner you describe. It can only be rejected, deliberately.
The conditions for a mortal sin are: grave matter, sufficient knowledge/refection, and a free act of the will.
No one commits mortal sin unknowingly or by accident. “Salvation” cannot be misplaced like one’s glasses or car keys.
The words in Ephesians describe how GOD has committed himself to our salvation. Jesus has given his life in order to bring us the possibility of living in grace.
The words in Ephesians are NOT a description of OUR subjective psychological state.
Protestants would profit by a better understanding of how Luther’s warped, neurotic psyche led him to twist the gospel. Luther re-interpreted Scriptures describing GOD’s unshakable desire to save us into a description of SUBJECTIVE “assurance” about our salvation.
To be quite honest, I've never read much on Luther.
The understanding of eternal life is evident in reading the Word.
He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. John 3:36
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life. John 3:14-15
Sure sounds like John was talking about an assurance of salvation.
Also, I notice how you've attempted to stray away from the topic of this thread....the immaculate conception.
Perhaps it's because you cannot scripturally defend the immaculate conception. Even rcc apologists admit they can't.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life. John 3:14-15
Sure sounds like John was talking about an assurance of salvation.
You have given a perfect example of what I was talking about. Read those two Scripture verses again. They are talking about the FACT of salvation. There is no reference whatever to the SUBJECTIVE emotional state of "assurance."
Are you capable of reading those verses without seeing something that ISN'T THERE?
I thought I had made clear, but I’ll say it again:
I DON’T CARE that the Immaculate Conception is not explicitly taught in Scripture.
I DOES NOT BOTHER ME that the Immaculate Conception is not explicitly taught in Scripture.
The reason for this is that I reject the self-contradictory, man-made, un-Scriptural doctrine of sola scriptura, which is not taught in Scripture.
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.