Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
For you loggats, which is fine. It doesn't translate. Only to 1:1000. It's a fact for you and cradle Romans and the tiny percentage of converts. God bless you with it. Is it a basis for exclusion ?

---

It's a dogma and as such is accepted (I see no reason to assume lots of Catholics deny it anyway) by a Church of 1.2 billion souls.

According to the Baltimore Catechism, "Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic? — A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all."

But I'm sure Rahner found an elegant way around that, so don't you worry.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Did Aquinas reject it? Where?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Did Aquinas reject it? Where?

---

He did not reject it, and the Baltimore Catechism (while good for catechizing children and people new to the faith) is hardly definitive anyway.

"Even though Aquinas did not claim that Mary was sanctified from the moment of her conception, he did claim that she was sanctified before her birth, and so never committed personal sin."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Did Aquinas reject it? Where?

---

He did not reject it, and the Baltimore Catechism (while good for catechizing children and people new to the faith) is hardly definitive anyway.

"Even though Aquinas did not claim that Mary was sanctified from the moment of her conception, he did claim that she was sanctified before her birth, and so never committed personal sin."

---

Okay, so now the immaculate conception is defined with an asterisk saying "conception doesn't necessarily occur at... conception"?

That's just bloody silly. It's one thing to point out that Aquinas thought that Mary was sanctified before birth. It's quite another to claim that he accepted the immaculate conception even while explicitly stating that he didn't.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And someone should tell that writer not to project what he thinks I object to. What I actually object to is an attitude of declaring that there is one eternally true theology, no querying allowed, while actually changing the theology over time.

And frankly I also object to throwing out statements like the Baltimore catechism, but then retracting them once there's a problem. If you don't really mean it, it shouldn't be tossed in to demonstrate the certainty and absoluteness of Catholic theology in the first place.

Actual Catholic theologians may well be more subtle about it, but my experience of the average Catholic is that definitive declarations of true aim get made in concert with moving the goalposts as necessary to ensure that the ball does in fact always end up in the net.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Did Aquinas reject it? Where?

---

He did not reject it, and the Baltimore Catechism (while good for catechizing children and people new to the faith) is hardly definitive anyway.

"Even though Aquinas did not claim that Mary was sanctified from the moment of her conception, he did claim that she was sanctified before her birth, and so never committed personal sin."

---

Okay, so now the immaculate conception is defined with an asterisk saying "conception doesn't necessarily occur at... conception"?

That's just bloody silly. It's one thing to point out that Aquinas thought that Mary was sanctified before birth. It's quite another to claim that he accepted the immaculate conception even while explicitly stating that he didn't.

---

Not completely sure you aren't the silly one here.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined ex cathedra in 1854 (Aquinas died in 1274). And since Aquinas is a saint (a member of the Church Triumphant) he's in the best position of all to finally understand that Mary was immaculately conceived. Though his wonderful mind got pretty close (closer than you've got so far, but who knows).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:
He's dead... he isn't on Ship of Fools claiming that the dogma is wrong.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Actual Catholic theologians may well be more subtle about it, but my experience of the average Catholic is that definitive declarations of true aim get made in concert with moving the goalposts as necessary to ensure that the ball does in fact always end up in the net.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

The authority of these writings, recognised implicitly in the first century and seen as giving them the status of 'scripture' was rather muddied in the second century by the other stuff that was written - hence the need for a council in order to confirm that which was apostolic and authoritative, and that which was not apostolic and therefore had no authority and no status as scripture.

The church did not create the scripture, the church council merely confirmed the authority of writings that were already known as scripture 200 years previously.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

The authority of these writings, recognised implicitly in the first century and seen as giving them the status of 'scripture' was rather muddied in the second century by the other stuff that was written - hence the need for a council in order to confirm that which was apostolic and authoritative, and that which was not apostolic and therefore had no authority and no status as scripture.

The church did not create the scripture, the church council merely confirmed the authority of writings that were already known as scripture 200 years previously.

---

Which council was that then? It certainly wasn't ecumenical. The canon was determined by custom not council.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.

---

quote:

---

The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.

---

quote:

---

The eastern churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than those in the west for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon. It was more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that it accepted (e.g. the classification of Eusebius, see also Antilegomena) and was less often disposed to assert that the books which it rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all. For example, the Trullan Synod of 691-692, which was rejected by Pope Constantine (see also Pentarchy), endorsed the following lists of canonical writings: the Apostolic Canons (c. 385), the Synod of Laodicea (c. 363), the Third Synod of Carthage (c. 397), and the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367). And yet, these lists do not agree. Similarly, the New Testament canons of the national churches of Syria, Armenia, Georgia, Egypt (The Coptic Church), and Ethiopia all have minor differences.[27] The Revelation of John is one of the most uncertain books; it was not translated into Georgian until the 10th century, and it has never been included in the official lectionary of the Greek Church, whether Byzantine or modern.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

originally posted by Orfeo
Actual Catholic theologians may well be more subtle about it, but my experience of the average Catholic is that definitive declarations of true aim get made in concert with moving the goalposts as necessary to ensure that the ball does in fact always end up in the net.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:
cont.

While it was not strictly necessary for the Virgin Mary to be free from original sin in order for our Lord to be free from it, it's impossible for God to sin or be stained by sin. He became man to redeem us from sin.

The reason for the Mary's Immaculate Conception is her divine maternity. Quoting from a post I read in a Catholic forum that puts it very clearly, "it was fitting that she be given gifts appropriate to her role in our salvation: the mother of our Savior. It was also fitting that Christ, the Redeemer of humanity, would save one person in a most preeminent manner, by preventing His mother from contracting original sin. This too shows how perfectly He kept the Fourth Commandment, as He honored His mother by giving her such an abundance of grace."

---

Yes, well, if more Catholics gave me the impression that Mary was made special because she was the mother of God, rather than giving the impression that only she could be the mother of God because she was special, half of these arguments wouldn't happen.

There of course remain problems of timing, but then God is one of only two beings who can do all sorts of funny timey-wimey stuff (the other being Doctor Who).

---

Yes, if it was more clearly explained that 'theotokos' means "the One she is the mother of is God", rather than "she is God's mother", then most Protestants would say, 'Ah right! Got you now ."

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Did Aquinas reject it? Where?

---

He did not reject it, and the Baltimore Catechism (while good for catechizing children and people new to the faith) is hardly definitive anyway.

"Even though Aquinas did not claim that Mary was sanctified from the moment of her conception, he did claim that she was sanctified before her birth, and so never committed personal sin."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, if it was more clearly explained that 'theotokos' means "the One she is the mother of is God", rather than "she is God's mother", then most Protestants would say, 'Ah right! Got you now

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, if it was more clearly explained that 'theotokos' means "the One she is the mother of is God", rather than "she is God's mother", then most Protestants would say, 'Ah right! Got you now

---

It might also help to explain that 'theotokos' is better translated 'bearer of God' rather than 'Mother of God' and relates more to the fact that the human and divine natures were united in Christ from the start rather than God entering him at a particular point in Jesus' ministry e.g. at his baptism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
it would also help to get rid of the dreadful attitude towards God that says we should pray to Mary because if he won't give it to you, go to his mother and she'll persuade him!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
it would also help to get rid of the dreadful attitude towards God that says we should pray to Mary because if he won't give it to you, go to his mother and she'll persuade him!

---

It reaches God in the end, isn't all that matters?

The doctrine of the intercession of the Saints simply says that as in our earthly families, we may ask our elderly siblings to share a word on our behalf with our Father, so we may ask our elderly sisters and brothers in Christ to pray to God on our behalf. It strengthens our familial bonds within the Church.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
it would also help to get rid of the dreadful attitude towards God that says we should pray to Mary because if he won't give it to you, go to his mother and she'll persuade him!

---

It reaches God in the end, isn't all that matters?

The doctrine of the intercession of the Saints simply says that as in our earthly families, we may ask our elderly siblings to share a word on our behalf with our Father, so we may ask our elderly sisters and brothers in Christ to pray to God on our behalf. It strengthens our familial bonds within the Church.

---

And reduces the role of the Holy Spirit as intercessor and the Son as mediator.

It also says something nasty about god's willingness to answer our prayers.
It also denies the loving and generous Fatherhood of God as revealed by Jesus who said, 'if you know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him.

Jesus said not one word - and neither did Paul or the apostles - about the supposed intercession of Mary or the saints.

Can you wonder why there is a Protestant church?
The God I read about in the Bible needs no 'saintly' intermediary: he hears my prayer perfectly well.

And as far as praying together here, or praying for one another, that is what we are asked to do. There is nothing about asking people who are dead to go to God for us - certainly not in order to persuade him!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's a tad Hellish, loggats and I must say I'm disappointed in you. I can see, though, how a more balanced, 'Anglican' approach could appear that way to more full-on Catholic or Orthodox types - I'm used to that ... just as I'm used to similar accusations from a different direction among fundamentalist Protestants.

Ordinarily, I'd call you to Hell and give you the kind of drubbing you deserve and allow less measured folk than me to get their teeth into you. But as you've apologised and as you're new, I'll overlook it.

Next time though, I'll have no such qualms and call you to Hell for the casuistic, ultra-montane Papist prat you are ... if that doesn't sound too Hellish in return ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Last time I looked, Mudfrog, the RCs weren't bypassing the Son and the Holy Spirit ... although I concede that it does sound like they are talking about a fourth member of the Trinity at times.

I'm not sure what purpose it serves to ponder how many aeons it would take the Virgin Mary to 'remember us sinners now and in the hour of our death,' for instance. I can see the grounds for your objection but I'd have thought that any objections would have to be based on scripture, reason and tradition (or Tradition) with experience thrown in, perhaps, rather than whether or not the maths adds up ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:
I think your post betrays the childish view of heaven.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:
I think your post betrays the childish view of heaven.

---

erm...read my post again and you will see that my objection is to this childish view of heaven. The saints are NOT in the next room...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:
I think your post betrays the childish view of heaven.

---

erm...read my post again and you will see that my objection is to this childish view of heaven. The saints are NOT in the next room...

---

You went on to describe what you think Catholics' believe about heaven (in a generally disparaging, completely inaccurate way) - that was the childish bit.

---

quote:

---

Death is nothing at all

I have only slipped away into the next room...

...I am waiting for you for an interval

Somewhere very near

Just around the corner

---