And even within that, the declarations can still be subject to interpretation
Exactly, which is why the only time this was used all the bishops had to also manifest themselves on the thesis of immaculate conception of Our Lady. Its the only time. Then it became dogma.
NGL, the issue of the immaculate conception of Mary might be the reason I can't complete my RCIC. While Mary ("the second Eve") might have been full of grace when Gabriel greeted her and Jesus was conceived, if she was conceived without sin and remained so, a.) why does she ask for forgiveness, and b.) why do we even need Jesus ("second Adam") at that point?
I think it's much more poetic, beautiful, and probably true that you have the story of Eve, who was born sinless and fell from grace and brought Adam with her, being completed in Mary, who was born with the original sin of Eve, and, rather than falling, rose to grace and from that state of perfect grace came Jesus (or allowed for the coming of Jesus). One could argue that Elijah or Moses or any other male biblical figure could've risen to a state of perfect grace while on Earth, but only through a woman in a state of perfect grace could a Man with a sinless life ahead of Him be conceived.
I've researched, and I just cannot see the case for, nor the logic in, a sinless Mary. So how do I avoid heresy? By not getting confirmed I guess.
a.) why does she ask for forgiveness Because she is still human, despite being flawless. And because she is, she expresses humility
b.) why do we even need Jesus ("second Adam") at that point? Well because the Virgin needs to birth the Saviour to follow scripture. The prophecy never mentioned a woman sacrificing herself for the human race. Jesus did, and was the incarnation of God. Our Lady was the closest a human could be to be flawless, yet still was not a suficient sacrifice to redeem the human race. Only infinite virtue could redeem infinite sin.
how do I avoid heresy?
Theres a whole section in theology dedicated to Mariology. You should research it, as I did, because I had the same issues. Our Lady was sinless because only a sinless woman can birth Our Lord's incarnation. And if the angels declared her full of grace, who are people to disagree? I found it always perplexing the protestants said she was a sinner. If Angel Gabriel was wrong, then what else is in the Bible according to them?
Because she is still human, despite being flawless. And because she is, she expresses humility
Incredibly weak. So she's more humble than Jesus now, too. Straight up sacrilege.
Our Lady was sinless because only a sinless woman can birth Our Lord's incarnation
So there are now two sinless people to have walked the Earth, despite literally zero scriptural evidence to support that and abundant scriptural evidence to the contrary. Or maybe three even, because "full of grace" apparently means "completely free from (even Original) sin," so Acts 6:8 says Stephen, too is sinless. Because "full of grace" is all it takes for one to be sinless now? No, of course not, that's why that one piece of flimsy evidence falls flat... and that's the only supporting evidence! Sure, she birthed Jesus, but the church builds the assumption of sinlessness on the platform of Gabriel greeting her as "full of grace."
Jesus was the only sinless person to have walked the Earth. It's silly to think otherwise. And it is downright astounding that this enormous, doctrine-upending discovery wasn't revealed in scripture for over 1800 years. St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Jerome... the most brilliant minds in the history of the church (and in history, generally) somehow missed this point in scripture. Almost like it wasn't there to begin with, and is completely unnecessary.
And of course that raises the other issue of Papal Infallibility. I figured it was a tall order when I learned about it, but the worst part (and maybe the best safeguard) about it is that you can't reject a single dogma without rejecting two. Unless that dogma is Papal Infallibility of course, but you'd have a hard time making a case for rejecting it if you thought the church was batting 1000 with all the rest of Her dogmas.
I can accept the other 3 Marian Dogmas. But Immaculate Conception is unnecessary and unbiblical, and, well, that's gonna be a no from me, dogma.
No one said anything about "more", or "less" humble. Mary was fully human, but bore no Original Sin. Jesus Christ was God, and therefore, carried no sin, but both still had flesh, so they felt all temptations associated with it.
Gabriel mentioning her Grace is not the only assumption. If you want to say Mary was less than perfect in her human form, you want to say that God chose a less-than-perfect human to birth Him, which makes zero sense. Also, what could you say about Our Lady birthing Jesus without pain? That would change any human, and so she did, gaining even more holiness.
Papal infallibility requires more than just the Pope invoking it. Immaculate Conception is just the consequence of God coming to Earth, and she being the image of all women for eternity shows it. Without Mary, a church with only men's participation ostracizes half of the human race. It is necessary that Our Lady be the second most holy image of the Church so women can follow; men follow God, women follow Mary. Men pray for Mary so that she provides for him and her wife. Women pray to God so that He provides for her and her husband. Saint Joseph adopted Jesus Christ and as His father in this world, takes precedence from all other saints. Latria, Dulia, Hyperdulia.
you want to say that God chose a less-than-perfect human to birth Him, which makes zero sense
So He chose a less-than-perfect human to somehow birth a perfect human? Or is it turtles all the way down now? (Anne was perfect in order to birth perfection, so her mother was perfect, etc... in case you missed the reference).
It makes sense in the way I explained already - if she was perfect enough to be assumed into heaven body and soul (so, y'know, perfect)... like Elijah, like Enoch... then she was a perfect enough vessel to carry God. She didn't have to be born with it; the others weren't.
IC also seems to contradict the analogy to the Ark of the Covenant, which previously held the presence of God. The Ark wasn't born holy; it was made holy.
Without Mary, a church with only men's participation ostracizes half of the human race
Hard to know where to begin with this one, but let's stay in the line of Christianity. First, somehow the Hebrews have managed to not ostracize women for millennia. Second, somehow the Catholic faith managed it for over 1800 years, and Christianity at large is still going strong without worshipping Mary. And you say "without Mary" as if she's not a major biblical figure that every Christian cherishes as the mother of Jesus... but to say she was sinless when it's not found anywhere in scripture is, well, again, unnecessary and wrong. At best, it's somehow luckily right, but completely unsubstantiated and unsupported in scripture.
Honestly, it really sounds like a progressive movement from that excuse. In fact, if it were to arise today, it would rightly be labeled as Catholics going "woke." Can't wait to hear the excuse for priestesses found in the penumbras and invisible ink of the Old Testament. Be hard to override St. Paul's teaching on the matter though, but hey, scripture apparently hasn't stopped the Catholics from inventing dogmas yet.
I value Catholicism for the sort of academic scrutiny of the Bible; I think the Catechism is an excellent resource. And the Catechism falls short here too, continually citing Luke 1:28 and then the Lumen Gentium (which is not scriptural).
And of course we're still ignoring Levitical law which, presumably, was still in effect since Jesus hadn't been born. So are we assuming Mary had never menstruated and therefore become unclean? While of course menstruation itself isn't a sin, it's certainly not fit for worship or to enter the the temple.
men follow God, women follow Mary
Straight up blasphemous. You can make an idol out of Mary all you want; I won't be a party to it. "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." I guess Catholicism isn't for me, which is unfortunate, because I'm not much for Lutheranism or most Protestantism either. I like the Catholic Bible and the history, but... maybe I'll just be a heretical Catholic. Suppose I'll get my communion somewhere else though.
I do not need to Defend God, God does NOT sin! Look! I agree that the linked story is horrible, it's disgusting! It sickens me that this is a thing, and it sickens me that I have to defend my Faith to a Protestant!
But in this case, you're correct! BUT ONLY because globalists have hijacked the Vatican! This Pope does not represent Catholicism! The Pope before him did! This Pope was brought in to destroy Catholicism! He's closer to a Protestant than a Catholic! His days are numbered! One he passes, I Pray to God, that He would raise up a strict Traditional Catholic Pope!
[ + ] NeverHappened
[ - ] NeverHappened 2 points 5 monthsNov 1, 2024 12:05:10 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 5 monthsNov 1, 2024 05:33:41 ago (+3/-1)
[ + ] Razzoriel
[ - ] Razzoriel 0 points 5 monthsNov 1, 2024 07:44:10 ago (+0/-0)
Exactly, which is why the only time this was used all the bishops had to also manifest themselves on the thesis of immaculate conception of Our Lady. Its the only time. Then it became dogma.
[ + ] InYourFaceNancyGrace
[ - ] InYourFaceNancyGrace 1 point 5 monthsNov 1, 2024 11:53:19 ago (+1/-0)
I think it's much more poetic, beautiful, and probably true that you have the story of Eve, who was born sinless and fell from grace and brought Adam with her, being completed in Mary, who was born with the original sin of Eve, and, rather than falling, rose to grace and from that state of perfect grace came Jesus (or allowed for the coming of Jesus). One could argue that Elijah or Moses or any other male biblical figure could've risen to a state of perfect grace while on Earth, but only through a woman in a state of perfect grace could a Man with a sinless life ahead of Him be conceived.
I've researched, and I just cannot see the case for, nor the logic in, a sinless Mary. So how do I avoid heresy? By not getting confirmed I guess.
[ + ] Razzoriel
[ - ] Razzoriel 0 points 5 monthsNov 1, 2024 18:29:20 ago (+0/-0)
Because she is still human, despite being flawless. And because she is, she expresses humility
b.) why do we even need Jesus ("second Adam") at that point?
Well because the Virgin needs to birth the Saviour to follow scripture. The prophecy never mentioned a woman sacrificing herself for the human race. Jesus did, and was the incarnation of God. Our Lady was the closest a human could be to be flawless, yet still was not a suficient sacrifice to redeem the human race. Only infinite virtue could redeem infinite sin.
Theres a whole section in theology dedicated to Mariology. You should research it, as I did, because I had the same issues. Our Lady was sinless because only a sinless woman can birth Our Lord's incarnation. And if the angels declared her full of grace, who are people to disagree? I found it always perplexing the protestants said she was a sinner. If Angel Gabriel was wrong, then what else is in the Bible according to them?
[ + ] InYourFaceNancyGrace
[ - ] InYourFaceNancyGrace 0 points 5 monthsNov 2, 2024 15:14:31 ago (+0/-0)
Incredibly weak. So she's more humble than Jesus now, too. Straight up sacrilege.
So there are now two sinless people to have walked the Earth, despite literally zero scriptural evidence to support that and abundant scriptural evidence to the contrary. Or maybe three even, because "full of grace" apparently means "completely free from (even Original) sin," so Acts 6:8 says Stephen, too is sinless. Because "full of grace" is all it takes for one to be sinless now? No, of course not, that's why that one piece of flimsy evidence falls flat... and that's the only supporting evidence! Sure, she birthed Jesus, but the church builds the assumption of sinlessness on the platform of Gabriel greeting her as "full of grace."
Jesus was the only sinless person to have walked the Earth. It's silly to think otherwise. And it is downright astounding that this enormous, doctrine-upending discovery wasn't revealed in scripture for over 1800 years. St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Jerome... the most brilliant minds in the history of the church (and in history, generally) somehow missed this point in scripture. Almost like it wasn't there to begin with, and is completely unnecessary.
And of course that raises the other issue of Papal Infallibility. I figured it was a tall order when I learned about it, but the worst part (and maybe the best safeguard) about it is that you can't reject a single dogma without rejecting two. Unless that dogma is Papal Infallibility of course, but you'd have a hard time making a case for rejecting it if you thought the church was batting 1000 with all the rest of Her dogmas.
I can accept the other 3 Marian Dogmas. But Immaculate Conception is unnecessary and unbiblical, and, well, that's gonna be a no from me, dogma.
[ + ] Razzoriel
[ - ] Razzoriel 0 points 5 monthsNov 2, 2024 19:22:30 ago (+0/-0)
Gabriel mentioning her Grace is not the only assumption. If you want to say Mary was less than perfect in her human form, you want to say that God chose a less-than-perfect human to birth Him, which makes zero sense. Also, what could you say about Our Lady birthing Jesus without pain? That would change any human, and so she did, gaining even more holiness.
Papal infallibility requires more than just the Pope invoking it. Immaculate Conception is just the consequence of God coming to Earth, and she being the image of all women for eternity shows it. Without Mary, a church with only men's participation ostracizes half of the human race. It is necessary that Our Lady be the second most holy image of the Church so women can follow; men follow God, women follow Mary. Men pray for Mary so that she provides for him and her wife. Women pray to God so that He provides for her and her husband. Saint Joseph adopted Jesus Christ and as His father in this world, takes precedence from all other saints. Latria, Dulia, Hyperdulia.
[ + ] InYourFaceNancyGrace
[ - ] InYourFaceNancyGrace 0 points 5 monthsNov 4, 2024 09:12:19 ago (+0/-0)*
So He chose a less-than-perfect human to somehow birth a perfect human? Or is it turtles all the way down now? (Anne was perfect in order to birth perfection, so her mother was perfect, etc... in case you missed the reference).
It makes sense in the way I explained already - if she was perfect enough to be assumed into heaven body and soul (so, y'know, perfect)... like Elijah, like Enoch... then she was a perfect enough vessel to carry God. She didn't have to be born with it; the others weren't.
IC also seems to contradict the analogy to the Ark of the Covenant, which previously held the presence of God. The Ark wasn't born holy; it was made holy.
Hard to know where to begin with this one, but let's stay in the line of Christianity. First, somehow the Hebrews have managed to not ostracize women for millennia. Second, somehow the Catholic faith managed it for over 1800 years, and Christianity at large is still going strong without worshipping Mary. And you say "without Mary" as if she's not a major biblical figure that every Christian cherishes as the mother of Jesus... but to say she was sinless when it's not found anywhere in scripture is, well, again, unnecessary and wrong. At best, it's somehow luckily right, but completely unsubstantiated and unsupported in scripture.
Honestly, it really sounds like a progressive movement from that excuse. In fact, if it were to arise today, it would rightly be labeled as Catholics going "woke." Can't wait to hear the excuse for priestesses found in the penumbras and invisible ink of the Old Testament. Be hard to override St. Paul's teaching on the matter though, but hey, scripture apparently hasn't stopped the Catholics from inventing dogmas yet.
I value Catholicism for the sort of academic scrutiny of the Bible; I think the Catechism is an excellent resource. And the Catechism falls short here too, continually citing Luke 1:28 and then the Lumen Gentium (which is not scriptural).
And of course we're still ignoring Levitical law which, presumably, was still in effect since Jesus hadn't been born. So are we assuming Mary had never menstruated and therefore become unclean? While of course menstruation itself isn't a sin, it's certainly not fit for worship or to enter the the temple.
Straight up blasphemous. You can make an idol out of Mary all you want; I won't be a party to it. "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." I guess Catholicism isn't for me, which is unfortunate, because I'm not much for Lutheranism or most Protestantism either. I like the Catholic Bible and the history, but... maybe I'll just be a heretical Catholic. Suppose I'll get my communion somewhere else though.
[ + ] happytoes
[ - ] happytoes 0 points 5 monthsNov 1, 2024 13:59:09 ago (+0/-0)
I had no idea what it was about. But it turns out that it was based on real life
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2024/10/29/who-is-luce-the-anime-mascot-of-the-catholic-church-explained/
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 0 points 5 monthsNov 1, 2024 02:29:02 ago (+1/-1)
@iSnark, defend your god!
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 1 point 5 monthsNov 1, 2024 04:55:15 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] iSnark
[ - ] iSnark -1 points 5 monthsNov 1, 2024 05:06:41 ago (+0/-1)
But in this case, you're correct! BUT ONLY because globalists have hijacked the Vatican! This Pope does not represent Catholicism! The Pope before him did! This Pope was brought in to destroy Catholicism! He's closer to a Protestant than a Catholic! His days are numbered! One he passes, I Pray to God, that He would raise up a strict Traditional Catholic Pope!
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 0 points 5 monthsNov 1, 2024 14:13:51 ago (+0/-0)
Your pope is your god! He says so, and according to your tradition is infallible.
So defend your god!