The Immaculate Conception

[romishpopishorganist]

Doesn't matter, they're all a false religion preaching another gospel than the one taught by the apostles!

Yeah-----

My point was that not all Catholics are "Romanists." I get the term "Romanist" is a term of derision, but even in your distain, you fail to understand that the term "Romainist" only refers to one aspect of the Church, namely the western half.

Why not just call us "Papists?" At least then your term of derision will be all inclusive.

 

[Nondenom40]

Ah! Well, the translators made a grave mistake here. I don't think even Jerome's Vulgate has the feminine pronouns in this verse from Genesis.

The interesting thing is New Advent catholic encyclopedia says that the feminine pronouns used in Gen 3:15 can't be defended grammatically.

 

[pilgrim]

ONLY Protestants render unto Mary, Jesus Mother, the reverence and honor called for as she carried out her ministry.

Yes, Bob. You know how to honor Jesus' Mother:

- Will "unified" Catholics be backing Mother Miriam?

So much for your "separated brethren." Post # 47 Protestants are splintered into multitudes of contradicting sects, with contradicting doctrines, worship, morals, disciplines, and governments. There is no unity of faith among them. The ONLY thing they are united in and agree upon with each...

forums.carm.org

 

[Nondenom40]

Yeah-----

My point was that not all Catholics are "Romanists." I get the term "Romanist" is a term of derision, but even in your distain, you fail to understand that the term "Romainist" only refers to one aspect of the Church, namely the western half.

Why not just call us "Papists?" At least then your term of derision will be all inclusive.

Protestant is also a term of derision but you and others use it daily to describe us. We are Christians, not protestants. That is a term catholics threw at Lutherans. And it had nothing to do with disagreeing with catholic theology.

 

[1Thess521]

I was thinking more about your observations/questions.

The main difference between Catholics and the Reformed is in how we see human nature before the fall and after the fall. When Adam and Eve sinned, we do not believe human nature was totally (or as modern reformed like to say radically) corrupted. We believe that human beings remained in essence good. Reformed on the other hand see humanity as becoming incapable of good. They see human nature as totally (radically) corrupted.

you were right before when you said you do not know Reformed theology:
but that won't stop you from mischaracterizing something you don't know.

"Totally corrupted. " does NOT humanity as incapable of good.
It means that man's fallen nature has affected every aspect of his life

Maybe you will learn something;

What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism

To know God in his sovereignty is to become like an oak tree in the wind of adversity and confusion.

www.desiringgod.org

 

[romishpopishorganist]

you were right before when you said you do not know Reformed theology:
but that won't stop you from mischaracterizing something you don't know.

"Totally corrupted. " does NOT humanity as incapable of good.
It means that man's fallen nature has affected every aspect of his life

Maybe you will learn something;

What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism

To know God in his sovereignty is to become like an oak tree in the wind of adversity and confusion.

www.desiringgod.org

Does Reformed theology say that man is a sinner becasue man sins, and man sins becasue he is a sinner?

I am trying to figure out where we are different.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Protestant is also a term of derision

No, it isn't. It is a term that distinguishes Catholics from non-Catholic Christians.

but you and others use it daily to describe us.

Because that is what you are--unless---you belong to a pseudo-Christian sect like the Mormons or JW's.

We are Christians, not protestants.

If you aren't Mormon, or JW, Catholic or Orthodox---you are a PROTESTANT.

That is a term catholics threw at Lutherans. And it had nothing to do with disagreeing with catholic theology.

Yeah--500 years ago.

 

[1Thess521]

Does Reformed theology say that man is a sinner becasue man sins, and man sins becasue he is a sinner?

I am trying to figure out where we are different.

consider a lion cub: whose only food has been its mother's milk:
Is that lion cub a carnivore?
Yes, by its nature it is carnivore.

Fallen man is a sinner by nature

 

[LifeIn]

But these Catholic beliefs are NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE--not even a hint. So, why base doctrines that one must believe in to be saved on those made up by man?

Here is a hint in the Bible: "Hail, full of grace!" said the archangel Gabriel. Who else in the bible is ever told they are "full of grace" by an angel? And how can she be full of grace if she is sinful. The translations refer to the Greek term kecharitomene, the past perfect participle of charis which means a gift, favor or grace. In Biblical Greek, this verbal form suggests permanence and singularity. Such singular, permanent grace in Mary is essentially the same concept affirmed in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Another source of biblical evidence involves the references to Mary as "Woman" (e.g. Jn 2 and Jn 19). The evangelist alludes to Eve, who is called "Woman" in Gen 2. There are other parallels between the Genesis account of Creation and its Fall and the Johannine account of the Redemption. For example, the tree of knowledge caused Adam's death in paradise. The tree of the cross caused the death of Jesus, the new Adam, in Jn 19. So there is a certain biblical parallel between Mary, the Woman of the New Creation, and Eve, the Woman formed in original justice at the first Creation (i.e. before the Fall). This parallel is stated explicitly by very early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr (d ca 160) and Irenaeus (d. ca 220). None of this is explicit proof of the doctrine. However, it is solid support from Scripture alone.

Then there is this from a 16th century theologian who wrote a little prayer book in 1522 in which he wrote:

"She is full of grace [voll Gnaden]; so that she may be recognized as without any sin. ... God’s grace fills her with all gifts and frees her from all evil."

In a 1527 sermon this theologian proclaimed:

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin”

The name of this 16th century theologian: Martin Luther. And he wrote this and preached it years after breaking with the Catholic Church. Although Lutheranism does not today declare the immaculate conception to be doctrine, they do call it a "pious belief". (not sure what that means - perhaps you could clarify, Bonnie?)

 

[Nondenom40]

Here is a hint in the Bible: "Hail, full of grace!" said the archangel Gabriel. Who else in the bible is ever told they are "full of grace" by an angel? And how can she be full of grace if she is sinful. The translations refer to the Greek term kecharitomene, the past perfect participle of charis which means a gift, favor or grace. In Biblical Greek, this verbal form suggests permanence and singularity. Such singular, permanent grace in Mary is essentially the same concept affirmed in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Another source of biblical evidence involves the references to Mary as "Woman" (e.g. Jn 2 and Jn 19). The evangelist alludes to Eve, who is called "Woman" in Gen 2. There are other parallels between the Genesis account of Creation and its Fall and the Johannine account of the Redemption. For example, the tree of knowledge caused Adam's death in paradise. The tree of the cross caused the death of Jesus, the new Adam, in Jn 19. So there is a certain biblical parallel between Mary, the Woman of the New Creation, and Eve, the Woman formed in original justice at the first Creation (i.e. before the Fall). This parallel is stated explicitly by very early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr (d ca 160) and Irenaeus (d. ca 220). None of this is explicit proof of the doctrine. However, it is solid support from Scripture alone.

The word charitoo doesn't mean full of grace. I've yet to find a lexicon that defines it that way. Its favored. Saying 'woman' is no more an allusion to her sinlessness than calling Peter satan means hes actually the devil. Youre reading into the text what you want to see.

 

[Nondenom40]

No, it isn't. It is a term that distinguishes Catholics from non-Catholic Christians.

Because that is what you are--unless---you belong to a pseudo-Christian sect like the Mormons or JW's.

If you aren't Mormon, or JW, Catholic or Orthodox---you are a PROTESTANT.

Yeah--500 years ago.

No, it isn't. It is a term that distinguishes Catholics from non-Catholic Christians.

Yes it is. Its a label given to Lutherans by catholics. It didn't simply mean 'non catholic'. And no, i am not a prot. I'm a christian. You guys are the original prots then with this split in 1054. Then another split at vat 1 and another at vat 2. When is the next split?

 

[LifeIn]

The word charitoo doesn't mean full of grace. I've yet to find a lexicon that defines it that way. Its favored.

The Greek scholarship is from University of Dayton. And your source is...?

 

[Nondenom40]

The Greek scholarship is from University of Dayton. And your source is...?

Then why didn't you properly cite your source? I don't see a book, author or page number. Mine is; BDAG 3rd ed, Exegetical Dictionary of the Greek New Testament, Louwe and Nida, Vincent, Vine's, Robertson. Want some more? None of them say 'full of grace'.

 

[LifeIn]

Then why didn't you properly cite your source? I don't see a book, author or page number. Mine is; BDAG 3rd ed, Exegetical Dictionary of the Greek New Testament, Louwe and Nida, Vincent, Vine's, Robertson. Want some more? None of them say 'full of grace'.

My source is the University of Dayton.

Here is a similar conclusion from the St. Paul Center.

 

[balshan]

Yeah-----

My point was that not all Catholics are "Romanists." I get the term "Romanist" is a term of derision, but even in your distain, you fail to understand that the term "Romainist" only refers to one aspect of the Church, namely the western half.

Why not just call us "Papists?" At least then your term of derision will be all inclusive.

Yep but if you are under the control of the pope you are Romanists and even the RCC uses that term on its buildings in most country. When I was growing up RCC, there was no problem with the term. It seems a recent thing for RCs to be offended by what they really are.

 

[Bonnie]

'

You mentioned Jerome's Vulgate; all I did was provide the verse. Someone here should be able to translate and determine feminine/masculine:
Gen 3:15 inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius ;

I know it was that verse, but still would like the English translation, that is all.

 

[Bonnie]

Yeah-----

My point was that not all Catholics are "Romanists." I get the term "Romanist" is a term of derision, but even in your distain, you fail to understand that the term "Romainist" only refers to one aspect of the Church, namely the western half.

Why not just call us "Papists?" At least then your term of derision will be all inclusive.

I don't use Romanist derisively, if I do use it. It just means Roman Catholics. I usually just write RCCer. But a long time ago, a Catholic on here vehemently complained about the use of "papist" as being too derisive, so I do not use it.

 

[Bonnie]

My source is the University of Dayton.

Here is a similar conclusion from the St. Paul Center.

"Full of grace" still is not a good translation. "Graced with favor" is more accurate.

 

[Bonnie]

The word charitoo doesn't mean full of grace. I've yet to find a lexicon that defines it that way. Its favored. Saying 'woman' is no more an allusion to her sinlessness than calling Peter satan means hes actually the devil. Youre reading into the text what you want to see.

That is called "eisegesis", something the RCC is really good at.

 

[Bonnie]

Here is a hint in the Bible: "Hail, full of grace!" said the archangel Gabriel. Who else in the bible is ever told they are "full of grace" by an angel? And how can she be full of grace if she is sinful. The translations refer to the Greek term kecharitomene, the past perfect participle of charis which means a gift, favor or grace. In Biblical Greek, this verbal form suggests permanence and singularity. Such singular, permanent grace in Mary is essentially the same concept affirmed in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Another source of biblical evidence involves the references to Mary as "Woman" (e.g. Jn 2 and Jn 19). The evangelist alludes to Eve, who is called "Woman" in Gen 2. There are other parallels between the Genesis account of Creation and its Fall and the Johannine account of the Redemption. For example, the tree of knowledge caused Adam's death in paradise. The tree of the cross caused the death of Jesus, the new Adam, in Jn 19. So there is a certain biblical parallel between Mary, the Woman of the New Creation, and Eve, the Woman formed in original justice at the first Creation (i.e. before the Fall). This parallel is stated explicitly by very early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr (d ca 160) and Irenaeus (d. ca 220). None of this is explicit proof of the doctrine. However, it is solid support from Scripture alone.

Then there is this from a 16th century theologian who wrote a little prayer book in 1522 in which he wrote:

"She is full of grace [voll Gnaden]; so that she may be recognized as without any sin. ... God’s grace fills her with all gifts and frees her from all evil."

In a 1527 sermon this theologian proclaimed:

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin”

The name of this 16th century theologian: Martin Luther. And he wrote this and preached it years after breaking with the Catholic Church. Although Lutheranism does not today declare the immaculate conception to be doctrine, they do call it a "pious belief". (not sure what that means - perhaps you could clarify, Bonnie?)

Luther was wrong. But he did not believe in Mariolatry. In fact, he wrote that too many focus on the mother to the exclusion of her Son. He said if we are to forget either of them, better to forget the mother instead of the Son. And that love for Mary should be but a drop compared to the ocean of love for her Divine Son (paraphrased).

But DO note that this is Luther's opinion. Mary's IC and being sinless are not taught as doctrine in the Lutheran Church. We certainly do not teach that believing it is necessary for salvation, as the RCC so foolishly does!!