Fides manducans intellectum!
Vetus,

As usual with the forked-tongue nonsense which forms part of your "contributions," you endeavor to give the appearance of great theological culture while simultaneously making errors which 15 minutes with a reputable summary of Catholic doctrine would have spared you.

It is absolutely false to say that the Holy Virgin's Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not mentioned in Scripture, and it is also false to claim that Tradition has no definite meaning.  To address each of your errors in turn:

1. The Immaculate Conception is explicitly prophesied in Genesis 3:15, which speaks of the fact that God will put enmities between the Woman and the devil, between Her Seed and the devil's seed.  Throughout all of human history, with one single exception, "seed" refers to the male contribution to the offspring.  There is only one Woman in history of Whom it can be said "Her Seed," and that is the Woman Who was an immaculate Virgin before, during, and after the birth of Her Son, Jesus Christ.  Additionally, it would be to accuse God of falsehood to say both that there will be "enmities" between some person and the devil, and that nevertheless such a person existed as at some time under his dominion by the stain of Original Sin.  As St. Cyril said of Christ's choosing the Holy Virgin as His Mother, "Who ever heard of a man building a house for his own use, then giving first possession of it to his greatest enemy?"  St. Louis de Montfort notes that Scripture mentions only one enmity as having been explicitly created by God, an absolute enmity, and that is the enmity between the Mother of God and the devil.  The enmity between the Holy Virgin and Satan is so absolute that in the next phrase God compares it to the enmity existing between Christ (Her Seed) and the seed of the devil, which represents evil in general.  Fr. J. McQuirk puts it likewise: "When God says that He will place enmity between Satan and the woman, the construction of words indicates that there shall be no previous friendship, afterwards to be dissolved, between the woman and the serpent; but that the hostility will be before all friendship."

The Immaculate Conception is also mentioned in Luke 1:28, when the angel Gabriel refers to the Holy Virgin with the Greek word kecharitomene.  Archbishop John MacEvilly classes this word grammatically as written in the perfect passive participle form, signifying literally “one made pleasing”; its form includes dual meanings, the “state or condition of being thus rendered pleasing” as well as the “quality or thing that renders us pleasing.”  But it is sanctifying grace, he continues, which makes us pleasing to God. Further, the word in question denotes an abundance or fullness of grace, and the angel Gabriel, instead of using the Blessed Virgin's Name, Mary, refers to Her as “full of grace,” “as her peculiar title, her distinguishing characteristic, applicable to her alone, and to no one else,” in such a way as to set the Blessed Virgin apart from all others in this point of possessing fullness of sanctifying grace (Abp. M's quotation).  At this time, too, Christ had not yet died for the salvation of men so as to win them graces to cleanse them from sin, and yet, as Archbishop MacEvilly notes, the word St. Luke uses here denotes “the passive past tense”; this grammatical tense “refers to past occurrences, the effect of which remains to the present. In the present instance, there is no limit to the period past; and hence, it implies, that the Virgin was “full of grace” from the very first moment of [H]er conception or existence.”  This includes, he adds, entire freedom from Original Sin, actual sin, and inclinations to sin, and positively, the superabundant possession of all virtues and gifts of grace from God: She "attained eminence in grace and sanctity to such a degree as rendered [H]er worthy to conceive in [H]er sacred womb and receive within [H]er, the source and fountain of all grace and sanctity, the eternal Son of God Himself.”  The angel's next words state that “the Lord is with Thee,” not, says Archbishop MacEvilly, that Christ was then with Her as already incarnated, but rather with Her as following from the fullness of grace just described. Finally, the angel calls Her “blessed...among women,” meaning that She surpasses all other women, including Eve. Since Eve began her existence free from all sin, so must the Blessed Virgin, blessed above Eve, be free from all sin, original and actual.

It is a law of Scripture that the fulfillment always surpasses the type which it fulfills (http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/200812...ption.html).  Or as Cardinal Gibbons summarizes, it is impossible to conceive that the mother of Cain would have been created superior to the Mother of Jesus.  And yet this absurdity is exactly what you maintain. 


2. The Assumption follows from the Immaculate Conception, for it is not death (as even Christ died) but rather corruption in the grave which follows as a penalty of Original Sin, whereas the Blessed Virgin had no sin.  Pius XII also calls attention to the vision of St. John the Apostle recorded in the last book of the Bible, the Book of the Apocalypse, written by this same apostle: “And a great sign appeared in heaven: A Woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under Her feet, and on Her head a crown of twelve stars...” (Apocalypse 12).  This vision immediately follows a reference to the Ark of the Covenant; just as this ark in the Old Testament contained the word of God in the Ten Commandments and the manna or miraculous bread which God sent down from Heaven, so did it thereby foreshadow the New Ark of the Covenant Who bore the Eternal Word made flesh and the Living Bread come from Heaven, Jesus Christ, Who is really present in the Blessed Sacrament. (John Salza explains the Old Testament typology of the Blessed Virgin as the New Ark of the Covenant here: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed..._mary.html).  Again, in the Old Testament, Psalm 131 reads: “Arise, Lord, into thy resting place: [T]hou and the ark, which [T]hou hast sanctified.”  The ark of the Old Covenant once more foreshadows the Blessed Virgin, the Ark of the New Covenant; the resting place of God is Heaven, where the Ark of the New Covenant, the Blessed Virgin, now also lives after Her Assumption. We note further that God took other figures in the Bible, such as the prophets Enoch and Elijah, directly into Heaven without dying: “And [Enoch] walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him...Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”  But St. Alphonsus mentions the axiom that no creature can enjoy this sort of privilege without the greatest of all creatures, the Blessed Virgin Mother of God Herself, enjoying the same privilege. The Blessed Virgin far surpasses Enoch and Elijah in holiness and nearness to God; these latter, great as they are, are only prophets, but the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God Herself. St. Robert Bellarmine summarizes this truth (quoted in Pius XI's definition):

Quote:And who, I ask, could believe that the ark of holiness, the dwelling place of the Word of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit, could be reduced to ruin? My soul is filled with horror at the thought that this virginal flesh which had begotten God, had brought him into the world, had nourished and carried him, could have been turned into ashes or given over to be food for worms.

Cardinal Newman remarks that as Eve would have enjoyed this privilege of incorruption had she never sinned, so did the Blessed Virgin, the new Eve, enjoy it; Pius XII likewise quotes St. Alphonsus Liguori's saying that “Jesus did not wish to have the body of Mary corrupted after death, since it would have redounded to his own dishonor to have her virginal flesh, from which he himself had assumed flesh, reduced to dust,” and adds that as Christ certainly kept the Decalogue's fourth commandment of honoring one's mother, “since it was within his power to grant her this great honor, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that he really acted in this way.”


3. It was already pointed out that St. Thomas did affirm the truth of the Immaculate Conception, and some Thomists (such as Cardinal Lambruschini) hold, based on St. Vincent Ferrer's 14th century copy, that early copies of the Summa did not contain the erroneous verse in question, but were the results of later interpolations.  St. Augustine certainly affirmed the Blessed Virgin's sinlessness almost a millenium earlier, as did many other Fathers and Doctors (St. Irenaeus, disciple of a disciple of an Apostle, St. Ephrem, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Ambrose, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Albert the Great, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas of Villanova, St. Dominic, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Bernardine of Siena, St. Lawrence Justinian, and St. Thomas Aquinas (often falsely accused of denying the dogma, which Cardinal Lambruschini, who cites the preceding figures, proves by analysis to be an untrue accusation based on spurious later additions to the saint's work). 


4. Your Protestant error implying that a doctrine not explicitly mentioned in Scripture is untrue has been refuted far too many times to rehash this ancient debate here.  Suffice it to say that in addition to being rejected by Scripture itself (see point #5 below), common sense rejects the idea that if something is not contained in Scripture explicitly, it is false.  In addition to many, many natural truths (the Pythagorean theorem, the law of gravity, the times tables) not being mentioned in Scripture, there are also significant moral truths (the prohibition of embryonic stem cell research, abortion, child molestation, dropping nuclear bombs on innocent people, etc.) which are not there mentioned but which no sane person would deny as pertaining to divine law.  Protestantism advances this objection constantly, and every time it fails.  Your attempt is no different.


5. Tradition is the unwritten part of divine revelation.  It can be found among other places in liturgies, the creeds, the Acts of the martyrs, the teachings of the Fathers, the customs and pious devotions of the people, the Church's practices and customs (e.g., the Lenten fast), the Monuments of Tradition (e.g., paintings in the catacombs referring to the Blessed Virgin as "Theotokos," contra Nestorianism), councils and papal teachings, and the like.  St. Irenaeus has a good writing on this in his Adversus haereses, as St. Vincent Lerins' Commonitorium.  All Protestants who worship on Sundays instead of Saturdays, baptize infants, consume blood (cf. Acts of the Apostles 15:29), and who accept all or most of the canonical Scriptures implicitly recognize the validity of Tradition, since none of those practices are explicitly stated or permitted in the Bible.  The Bible itself also explicitly repudiates the idea that the Bible alone is the sole source of Revelation (cf. John 21:25, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Acts 20:35), and it also explicitly condemns your practice of deriving divine revelation from a personal sifting of the Scriptures (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 18:18, 2 Peter 3:16, Luke 10:16).  Your comments on Tradition are therefore completely wrong and seem indicative that you haven't taken even a minimum amount of time to study Catholic doctrine on this point.

There are many summaries of Catholic doctrine which explain how and why defining dogmas centuries after the apostles is not to "invent" something not contained in divine revelation. 



To conclude, Vetus, If you are the Christian which you claim to be, then you should be able to recognize that you are behaving dishonorably right now.  You are participating in a forum which explicitly forbids your heretical and blasphemous comments denying divine revelation about the Holy Virgin Mother of God.  But of infinitely worse consequence is that your heresies offend God and assure yourself of damnation, barring your repentance.  I pray for your repentance, but until you get there, stop your attacks on the true Faith.  Stop trying to drag others down with you.  St. Alphonsus Liguori said that "not only to commit sin, but also to endeavor to lead others to sin, is truly an excess of wickedness." 


Repent, Vetus.  Really.  Time is short, and eternity is long.  Lucifer is much smarter than you are, and look where it got him.  There is nothing more diabolical than to attack the Mother of God.  Christ will avenge His Mother, be assured of it.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-22-2012, 07:54 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Scriptorium - 10-22-2012, 09:14 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-23-2012, 12:32 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Doce Me - 10-23-2012, 01:06 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Doce Me - 10-23-2012, 01:39 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Oldavid - 10-23-2012, 04:27 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Scriptorium - 10-23-2012, 09:46 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-23-2012, 05:31 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Scriptorium - 10-23-2012, 06:37 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-23-2012, 07:12 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-23-2012, 07:20 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Doce Me - 10-23-2012, 07:56 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-23-2012, 08:19 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-23-2012, 09:26 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-23-2012, 09:34 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-23-2012, 09:44 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-23-2012, 09:46 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Scriptorium - 10-23-2012, 09:57 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-23-2012, 10:10 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Doce Me - 10-23-2012, 10:32 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Scriptorium - 10-23-2012, 10:38 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-23-2012, 11:53 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-24-2012, 01:13 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Doce Me - 10-24-2012, 01:19 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-24-2012, 03:04 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Scriptorium - 10-24-2012, 09:15 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-24-2012, 05:57 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-25-2012, 12:22 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Doce Me - 10-25-2012, 02:56 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-25-2012, 03:14 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Doce Me - 10-25-2012, 02:50 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-25-2012, 06:27 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Scriptorium - 10-25-2012, 06:33 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-25-2012, 06:35 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-25-2012, 06:38 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-25-2012, 06:40 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-25-2012, 07:21 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-25-2012, 08:03 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-25-2012, 08:06 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Doce Me - 10-25-2012, 08:12 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-25-2012, 08:15 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Scriptorium - 10-25-2012, 08:40 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-25-2012, 09:11 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-25-2012, 09:34 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-26-2012, 12:32 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-26-2012, 12:34 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 12:38 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 12:43 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 12:44 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-26-2012, 12:46 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 12:48 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 12:49 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 01:30 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 01:31 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-26-2012, 01:36 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 01:46 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 01:50 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 01:53 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 01:58 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 02:09 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 02:11 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 02:13 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 02:29 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 02:49 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Parmandur - 10-26-2012, 03:34 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 03:38 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 03:20 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Scriptorium - 10-26-2012, 03:46 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Doce Me - 10-26-2012, 03:59 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 04:21 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 04:26 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 04:43 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 08:27 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 08:33 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 08:41 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 09:30 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 09:38 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 10:04 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-26-2012, 10:25 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 10:43 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-26-2012, 10:45 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Doce Me - 10-26-2012, 11:06 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-27-2012, 12:05 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-27-2012, 12:39 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Parmandur - 10-27-2012, 01:05 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Parmandur - 10-27-2012, 02:20 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-27-2012, 03:16 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-27-2012, 04:27 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-27-2012, 06:36 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Walty - 10-27-2012, 09:31 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-27-2012, 10:27 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Doce Me - 10-27-2012, 11:50 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Vetus Ordo - 10-27-2012, 11:57 PM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Parmandur - 10-28-2012, 02:19 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Geremia - 10-28-2012, 02:51 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by Parmandur - 10-28-2012, 03:05 AM
Re: Fides manducans intellectum! - by GUDC - 10-28-2012, 02:58 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)