[Mrs. Don-o]

Enough. I can't respond right now because I'm on my way to hematology. However, you have not paid sufficient heed, I think, either to participles nor to hermeneutic principles, nor to Scriptural evidence, nor to the historic way the Church--- guided by the Spirit, as Christ promised --- has interpreted that evidence.

And you say things you can have no knowledge of whatsoever, as if they were the given facts ("She [Mary] was no more grace-filled than Stephen." The Holy Spirit is giving you, personally, individually, the power to read the hearts of people who lived 2000 years ago? I think not.)

This brings us to an impasse.

Upon careful consideration, I'm going with the testimony of a millennium of united, historic Christendom, rather than with one FReeper whose knowledge is as limited as mine, and whose name I do not even know --- my dear ealgeone.

So I say, Enough. And peace be with you.

[ealgeone]

Enough. I can't respond right now because I'm on my way to hematology. However, you have not paid sufficient heed, I think, either to participles nor to hermeneutic principles, nor to Scriptural evidence, nor to the historic way the Church--- guided by the Spirit, as Christ promised --- has interpreted that evidence.

Yes, actually I have paid attention to the participles and hermeneutics.

Yes, I have paid attention to Scripture evidence as I agree with the Catholic Encyclopedia Online there is no direct or categorical support for Mary's Immaculate Conception.

The early NT church did not understand Luke 1:28 as Roman Catholicism does. As noted before...this was a latter development in Roman Catholicism.

Upon careful consideration, I'm going with the testimony of a millennium of united, historic Christendom, rather than with one FReeper whose knowledge is as limited as mine, and whose name I do not even know --- my dear ealgeone.

The problem with your statement is there is not a millennium of united, historic Christendom on this topic.

That Catholicism claims this was so well known in the Church it took until 1854 for it to be proclaimed dogma.

Pius IX, at the beginning of his pontificate, and again after 1851, appointed commissions to investigate the whole subject, and he was advised that the doctrine was one which could be defined and that the time for a definition was opportune.

It was not until 1854 that Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic bishops, whom he had consulted between 1851–1853, promulgated the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for "Ineffable God"), which defined ex cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

This is why I think the Fifth Marian dogma will be proclaimed eventually. Get enough public support behind it and the pope declares it dogma.

And not to be snooty but I'm one class away from finishing graduate level work in NT Greek.

Hope your appointment went well.