Which historical version of the Catholic Church is infallibly correct?

[Mungo]

Could anyone today say to Pope Francis what Paul said to Peter?

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Gal. 2:11-21 KJV)

So you are talking about trivia.
But no, no-one could say to Pope Frances “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Perhaps partly because Pope Francis is not a Jew.
Does that mean the Catholic Church under Pope Francis is different that under Peter?

BTW, how do you know that the Cephas in Gal 2 is the apostle Peter and not another Cephas?

 

[Walpole]

Could anyone today say to Pope Francis what Paul said to Peter?

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Gal. 2:11-21 KJV)

A cursory search answers your question...

Cardinal Müller critiques Pope Francis' 'harsh' response to extraordinary form, compared to German Synodal Way

The former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has critiqued Pope Francis’ recent restrictions on extraordinary form Masses as “harsh” compared to his modest response to the “massive attacks on the unity of the Church” posed by the Synodal Way in Germany.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

The cardinal who rebuked the Pope - Catholic Herald

Why did the Archbishop of Boston publicly confront the Pope over the case of a Chilean bishop?

catholicherald.co.uk

 

[God Is My Judge]

If you lived as Christ, you are His Tabernacle and therefore, if you are a saint, man may create images according to what is shown to them from heaven. Saints are living tabernacles meaning the presence of Christ is in them. Everything built in the Old Testament, was a physical man-made creation according to what was shown from heaven. Just like the old covenant Ark was a symbol of the New Testament Ark -Mary, so too is the Tabernacle which is Christ. Each saint is a reflection of both- in the minor. True saints are worthy to have their pictures taken, with whatever manner of operation used throughout history. People who take issue with images of saints being made, in essence- have a problem with picture taking.

That picture is given based off a life worthy of praise because God has exalted that person to sainthood. What we are not to do is, ONLY use images to show faith rather than act according to the example of the faith shown through whatever saint. Unfortunately, too many people think by having icons, images and relics means holy, when their lives are less than holy.

Religious art is an acceptable honoring of God. " Behold I make all things new", art is a medium by which the Creator's story can be depicted. It was especially beneficial for those who were illiterate. Christian Orthodox art was exceptional in that.

Now, do I think every person declared a saint by the Catholic church is a saint, no. But the depiction of actual saints is cool, and a great historical record of a life well lived. I personally love Christian Orthodox art and depictions. Point is, all glory to God even in His minors! Trust me even Jews for Christ agree!

Leviticus 26:
Additional Blessings of Obedience

1“You must not make idols for yourselves or set up a carved image or sacred pillar; you must not place a sculpted stone in your land to bow down to it. For I am the LORD your God.

What is an idol; an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.

Well, to make images depicting Christ is not just any god but depicting THE GOD, come in flesh. This type of art, based on what was shown to us from heaven, invokes a memory, that for those who love Him- is pleasing to God. This image of Christ is too depicted as I said- in the depiction of images of His saints.

A sacred pillar: a tall vertical structure of stone, wood, or metal, used as a support for a building, or as an ornament or monument.

Now clearly, God has no problem with pillars, after all the Temple of Solomon and Herod's temple were built according to what was shown from heaven and documented by His prophets. There were pillars everywhere.

What God is referring to here, concerning pillars is, the phallic pillars that pagans erected which were symbolic of a penis. PERIOD. Clearly, offensive! I mean since God's prowess was not in His penis, as Christ clearly shows nor is that a man's strength in God, his faith is! So, I agree that the Pillar or Phallic symbol in St. Peter's square in Rome is a ding, dong approach by men who try too hard to make themselves relevant according to the world's standard. And sticking a statue of St. Peter upon it is corny. Just should not be there.

Forbidden Forms of Worship
21Do not set up any wooden Asherah pole next to the altar you will build for the LORD your God, 22and do not set up for yourselves a sacred pillar, which the LORD your God hates.

And the bottom line, we should not be bowing to any graven image of a saint, just as the saints would not want us to bow to them in life.

Acts 10:
Peter Visits Cornelius
24The following day he arrived in Caesarea, where Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter was about to enter, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet to worship him. 26But Peter helped him up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”…

Since the Roman Catholic Church likes to tout Peter the Rock as their example, then stop bowing to one another. Ya know it happens.

Moral of the story is, images shown from heaven are just reminders and art, not the embodiment of a soul, but are simply a memory captured and can invoke reverence toward the creator. Look upon them with that in mind. People need to stop being weak minded and irrational, fighting over Christian memories captured in time. It is simply Christian art!
As I said my Jewish brothers agree.

 

[Alfred Persson]

So you are talking about trivia.
But no, no-one could say to Pope Frances “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Perhaps partly because Pope Francis is not a Jew.
Does that mean the Catholic Church under Pope Francis is different that under Peter?

BTW, how do you know that the Cephas in Gal 2 is the apostle Peter and not another Cephas?

You evaded the obvious implication Peter was not infallible.

As for Cephas, Paul switches from PETROS to Cephas in Galatians 2:9 (TR) because PETROS("Firstborn") didn't covey the stone metaphors Paul wanted for his caustic review of "those who seemed to be somewhat…seemed to be pillars", these lamps of fire guiding the people imparted no light to Paul (cp Gal 2:6,9 with Ex 13:21; cf also Berachoth 28b).

Peter is both a pillar and a KEPHA stone of grace, a small precious stone benefiting the holder:

Therefore, Peter failed both as a pillar and as a stone of grace. Rather than a guiding light to the Gospel of Christ, Peter cowers in fear following followers James failed to guide correctly, into error…even against the vision God gave him! (Ac 10:34). Ironic indeed for a pillar and a kepha.

As would be expected in unsound eclectic texts that deviate from the Byzantine family of mss, the change from Cephas (Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) to petros (2:7, 8) is purely random, a product of confusion.

Paul intentionally switched to Cephas as the context itself demonstrates.

Jesus’ Janus Parallelism on PETROS in Matthew 16:18 | End Time News

In Matthew 16 18 Simon Peter's name in Greek is Petros. According to Oscar Cullmann, Dalman, Billerbeck[1] to name a few, in Jesus' day there was in Aramaic a Jewish proper name[2] meaning "firstborn" that when transliterated into Greek is spelled petros. . According to Markus Bockmuehl its...

endtimenews.net

 

[Alfred Persson]

A cursory search answers your question...

Cardinal Müller critiques Pope Francis' 'harsh' response to extraordinary form, compared to German Synodal Way

The former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has critiqued Pope Francis’ recent restrictions on extraordinary form Masses as “harsh” compared to his modest response to the “massive attacks on the unity of the Church” posed by the Synodal Way in Germany.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

The cardinal who rebuked the Pope - Catholic Herald

Why did the Archbishop of Boston publicly confront the Pope over the case of a Chilean bishop?

catholicherald.co.uk

Well done, I concede you countered that proof. That's a close enough parallel.

But as you might suspect, you didn't win the debate, there are other proofs:

re the Immaculate conception of Mary. If that is true, why does she herself claim to be a sinner in need of a Saviour:

46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
(Lk. 1:46-47 KJV)

 

[Walpole]

Well done, I concede you countered that proof. That's a close enough parallel.

But as you might suspect, you didn't win the debate, there are other proofs:

re the Immaculate conception of Mary. If that is true, why does she herself claim to be a sinner in need of a Saviour:

46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
(Lk. 1:46-47 KJV)

To every Jew, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is Savior.

"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no Saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)

"Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. (Isaiah 45:21)

"Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no Saviour beside me." (Hosea 13:4)

"The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower,and my refuge, my Saviour; thou savest me from violence." (2 Samuel 22:3)

 

[Alfred Persson]

To every Jew, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is Savior.

"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no Saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)

"Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. (Isaiah 45:21)

"Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no Saviour beside me." (Hosea 13:4)

"The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower,and my refuge, my Saviour; thou savest me from violence." (2 Samuel 22:3)

What do any of those texts have to do with Mary's prayer to God?

According to Catholic dogma, Mary is NOT like every other Jew.

If she were immaculately conceived, then she didn't need to be saved.

Jesus Christ never calls the Father His Saviour, BECAUSE He was immaculately conceived.

 

[God Is My Judge]

You evaded the obvious implication Peter was not infallible.

As for Cephas, Paul switches from PETROS to Cephas in Galatians 2:9 (TR) because PETROS("Firstborn") didn't covey the stone metaphors Paul wanted for his caustic review of "those who seemed to be somewhat…seemed to be pillars", these lamps of fire guiding the people imparted no light to Paul (cp Gal 2:6,9 with Ex 13:21; cf also Berachoth 28b).

Peter is both a pillar and a KEPHA stone of grace, a small precious stone benefiting the holder:

Therefore, Peter failed both as a pillar and as a stone of grace. Rather than a guiding light to the Gospel of Christ, Peter cowers in fear following followers James failed to guide correctly, into error…even against the vision God gave him! (Ac 10:34). Ironic indeed for a pillar and a kepha.

As would be expected in unsound eclectic texts that deviate from the Byzantine family of mss, the change from Cephas (Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) to petros (2:7, 8) is purely random, a product of confusion.

Paul intentionally switched to Cephas as the context itself demonstrates.

Jesus’ Janus Parallelism on PETROS in Matthew 16:18 | End Time News

In Matthew 16 18 Simon Peter's name in Greek is Petros. According to Oscar Cullmann, Dalman, Billerbeck[1] to name a few, in Jesus' day there was in Aramaic a Jewish proper name[2] meaning "firstborn" that when transliterated into Greek is spelled petros. . According to Markus Bockmuehl its...

endtimenews.net

You are right, out of the gate Peter was not infallible. But what is missed right out of the gate by people is, his start was not his finish. His correction and learning when corrected by a brother, shows his wisdom. " Correct a wise man and he will love you for it- he will become wiser still". Trust me that could never be applied to Jorge Bergoglio. It could of, however, been applied to many shepherds of the Roman Catholic Church. Not all but quite a few. The point is how you finish. And Peter ended up perfect as Christ called him to be- " Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect". I would not dare lay accusation against Peter. That's how satan rolls!

Paul said that after his departure that wolves would enter amongst the church. They have, the children of God are told to be wise and recognize them, we do and do not follow them.

From the founding of the Church Judas' have entered, thinking they know better than God, have plotted, taken bribes after having tasted of Christ who is sweet. What does this all mean? Some want that sweet glory for themselves only. To follow Christ is to give up self. The self minded commit spiritual suicide in betraying Christ. Turning away from truth after knowing it, is essentially killing yourself with your own rope- the tie ups of life in the world. You are cut off from God then, making yourself god. You throw back your own life in His face that you did not give to yourself to begin with.

Moral of the story, wolves may come, Judas' will rise and recline at table with you, walk with you and call you rabbi and brother and friend but you will know them by their associations and lack of serving Christ. Their actions give them away. They betray the gospel for one that was not preached. They turn away from the Good News because that does not make news.

They will greet you with a kiss, because they have tasted truth, but when they speak they divide and separate. They scatter the flock because they have handed Christianty over to the Jew. The scripture that refers to one like Jorge is that about Shebna and Judas.

" I am the Good Shepherd, I lay down my life for My sheep, feed my sheep. I know mine and mine know me, they will not listen to another's voice". Don't sweat the wolves, the Judas's or the Shebnas, God takes care of them. Do not validate them, preach the gospel of truth against them. They wil show themselves as the butchers they are all the time. " You will know them by their fruits".

 

[Walpole]

What do any of those texts have to do with Mary's prayer to God?

According to Catholic dogma, Mary is NOT like every other Jew.

You asked why Mary would call God her savior. Again, to every Jew, which she was, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is Savior.

If she were immaculately conceived, then she didn't need to be saved.

Jesus Christ never calls the Father His Saviour, BECAUSE He was immaculately conceived.

The difference between Mary and Jesus in in HOW they are sinless. Jesus, because He is God, is sinless by nature. Jesus stands in need of no savior as He is God. Mary is sinless by redemption; that is, her sinlessness depends on God's favor. Mary's sinlessness is not something she possess by nature, rather, she is sinless because God created her that way.

The word "immaculate" is taken from two Latin words meaning "not stained." Conception means that at the first moment of her conception, the Blessed Mother - in virtue of the anticipated merits of the Redemption of her Son - was preserved free from the stains of original sin.

If you want the Scripture testifying to this, we have St. Luke's account of Gabriel's greeting. In addition, we have the book of Wisdom...

Wisdom 1:4 ---> "For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sin."


Who does Scripture call wisdom? (1 Cor 1:24, 30)


In whose body did wisdom dwell? (Luke 1:31)


If Christ is the Wisdom of God and if Mary is the person in whose body He dwelt, then there is the Immaculate Conception.


I am always reminded that Satan hates Mary. For Mary embodies the promises of redemption in her person. She is the type, figure and image of the Church. In her person is the fullness of redemption and she reveals what it means to be redeemed. Thus anyone who seeks to denigrate her or diminish her role in the economy of salvation is acting in the spirit of anti-Christ.

 

[Alfred Persson]

You asked why Mary would call God her savior. Again, to every Jew, which she was, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is Savior.

The difference between Mary and Jesus in in HOW they are sinless. Jesus, because He is God, is sinless by nature. Jesus stands in need of no savior as He is God. Mary is sinless by redemption; that is, her sinlessness depends on God's favor. Mary's sinlessness is not something she possess by nature, rather, she is sinless because God created her that way.

The word "immaculate" is taken from two Latin words meaning "not stained." Conception means that at the first moment of her conception, the Blessed Mother - in virtue of the anticipated merits of the Redemption of her Son - was preserved free from the stains of original sin.

If you want the Scripture testifying to this, we have St. Luke's account of Gabriel's greeting. In addition, we have the book of Wisdom...

Wisdom 1:4 ---> "For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sin."


Who does Scripture call wisdom? (1 Cor 1:24, 30)


In whose body did wisdom dwell? (Luke 1:31)


If Christ is the Wisdom of God and if Mary is the person in whose body He dwelt, then there is the Immaculate Conception.


I am always reminded that Satan hates Mary. For Mary embodies the promises of redemption in her person. She is the type, figure and image of the Church. In her person is the fullness of redemption and she reveals what it means to be redeemed. Thus anyone who seeks to denigrate her or diminish her role in the economy of salvation is acting in the spirit of anti-Christ.

Because Catholics claim Mary was immaculately CONCEIVED, Christ's deity is not pertinent. His human nature immaculately CONCEIVED is.

Jesus was a Jew, truly human. A man like us in all points except sin. As His human nature was immaculately conceived, He never speaks as Mary did:

And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. (Lk. 1:47 NKJ)

As for those irrelevant and strained "wisdom" citations, we are talking about immaculately conceived human nature, not wisdom.

 

[Walpole]

Because Catholics claim Mary was immaculately CONCEIVED, Christ's deity is not pertinent. His human nature immaculately CONCEIVED is.

Jesus was a Jew, truly human. A man like us in all points except sin. As His human nature was immaculately conceived, He never speaks as Mary did:

And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. (Lk. 1:47 NKJ)

Inevitably, whenever Protestants start attacking Mary, they fall into Christological and Trinitarian errors, as you have just done. You are dividing the person of Christ into separate parts, quantities and portions by dividing Christ's human nature and Divine nature.

Mary did not give birth to a nature, but rather to a Person; a Person who is God. And being God, Christ is sinless in His essence.

Mary, by contrast, is sinless by favor of God.

As for those irrelevant and strained "wisdom" citations, we are talking about immaculately conceived human nature, not wisdom.

I cited the Book of Wisdom to give you the Scriptural support for Mary's immaculate conception. Here it is again...

Wisdom 1:4 ---> "For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sin."

Who does Scripture call wisdom? (1 Cor 1:24, 30)

In whose body did wisdom dwell? (Luke 1:31)

---> If Christ is the Wisdom of God and if Mary is the person in whose body He dwelt, then there is the Immaculate Conception.

 

[God Is My Judge]

You asked why Mary would call God her savior. Again, to every Jew, which she was, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is Savior.

The difference between Mary and Jesus in in HOW they are sinless. Jesus, because He is God, is sinless by nature. Jesus stands in need of no savior as He is God. Mary is sinless by redemption; that is, her sinlessness depends on God's favor. Mary's sinlessness is not something she possess by nature, rather, she is sinless because God created her that way.

The word "immaculate" is taken from two Latin words meaning "not stained." Conception means that at the first moment of her conception, the Blessed Mother - in virtue of the anticipated merits of the Redemption of her Son - was preserved free from the stains of original sin.

If you want the Scripture testifying to this, we have St. Luke's account of Gabriel's greeting. In addition, we have the book of Wisdom...

Wisdom 1:4 ---> "For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sin."


Who does Scripture call wisdom? (1 Cor 1:24, 30)


In whose body did wisdom dwell? (Luke 1:31)


If Christ is the Wisdom of God and if Mary is the person in whose body He dwelt, then there is the Immaculate Conception.


I am always reminded that Satan hates Mary. For Mary embodies the promises of redemption in her person. She is the type, figure and image of the Church. In her person is the fullness of redemption and she reveals what it means to be redeemed. Thus anyone who seeks to denigrate her or diminish her role in the economy of salvation is acting in the spirit of anti-Christ.

That is a mish mosh twisting of the meaning of scripture. Redemption means to be brought back to the intended state before the fall. Hence, redemption- to be redeemed. To be redeemed you need to be sanctified by grace given in Mercy by faith.

No kidding all Jews know God as their Saviour, but that which needs redemption as you mention does need saving. She said what she said in truth not as just something you say but do not believe or actually mean. And because she is a human conceived like every human is conceived- natural conception, she needed to be saved.

There is no scripture saying that happened before the Annunciation. Christ, though He became human, was not conceived by natural conception. Therefore, He was the only one conceived without the stain of original sin. Even John the Baptist who is prophesied to have the Holy Spirit from the womb, did not receive the Holy Spirit until Elizabeth's 6th month when Mary went to visit her.

Upon Mary's greeting, the child in Elizabeths womb leaped for joy and she was filled then with the Holy Spirit and said; " Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. I too am highly favored that the mother of my Lord has come to me. Blessed are you who believed there would be a PERFORMANCE OF THE WORD SPOKEN TO HER"

What you claim happened to her in her mother's womb actually happened when the Performance of the word spoken to her happened. She is our Immaculate Conception for that! Not as you say. And yes, Wisdom flees from sin, that is why the enmity of Genesis 3:15 was placed between her and the serpent at her yes. It is at that point she became the seat of wisdom because the Word of God was present in her. Wisdom accompanies the Word wherever He goes. Since Mary is the one chosen to be the sign for the house of David she was given wisdom in full. Full of grace, from her cup to ours is wisdom from then on apportioned to men when born in Christ.

She became the seat of wisdom at the Annunciation not before. Scripture supports that. Your Apocrypha supports the lie it produced.

She didn't make a proclamation in lip service that " My souls magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour " she doesn't do what hypocrites do. She was redeemed and born by way of the Most High who overshadowed her. That saving and redemption did not happen in her mother's womb. She was righteous like father Abraham because her faith was attributed to her as such. She lived according to the practices of the OC IN FAITH unlike the Pharisees and Sadducees.

She became Immaculate by way of her Immaculate Conception in the Holy Seed. Period! Born again once conceived by the Holy Seed -Christ makes for your sanctification. That is why she said-"God has looked at the lowly state of His handmaiden in remembrance of His promise to Abraham".

An Immaculate state is not a lowly state. You people just refuse to embrace the truth to try and save the face of fallible popes and their teachings. All you really manage to do is look silly changing words and their meanings in scripture. You deny Christian doctrine to suit your own pride in your men when you should be rejoicing in the truth!
I mean if that is how you want to roll, no skin off my back. Just sayin. Have at it, and you do, and you will.

Mary is the Immaculate Conception of the church because she, having been conceived in the Holy Seed- the Imperishable seed- THE WORD OF GOD- Christ, was holy sanctified to receive in her virgin Womb the Holy Seed of God who would incarnate of her flesh by way of the Holy Spirit. She, therefore, conceived all Christianity in her womb. Therefore, is our Immaculate Conception because she was the first to be saved according to the New Covenant and the promise made to Abraham.

In her is our beginning which a CONCEPTION IS- A BEGINNING and Christianity's begin is an Immaculate one. You can teach what you want. We are at the End of the age and those who refuse this truth will not be left standing. You hold silver with dross, you hold gold with dross, you will go to heaven but only as one snatched out of the fire of purging and will not be here for the finish of the end of the age. I have a precious gem doctrine which is superior to the one you cling to. And since pillars are not made of precious metals but rather precious stones I will not pass away until I see the return of Christ and the fulfillment of the remaining of prophecy. That is Mother Mary's promise. That promised " certain time of Peace after communism seems to have taken over the world- My Immaculate heart shall triumph". And those with precious gem doctrine will enjoy that season and teach the many who remain after you are all gone. It will be by the blood of martyrdom the many clergy of different rank and laypersons of different rank will gain entry to heaven, that's a Fatima promise. And by the sprinkling of that blood the many will convert and then the Elect precious gems will teach because the clay will be ready for the Maker's hand. ISRAEL- God Prevails!

 

[Alfred Persson]

Inevitably, whenever Protestants start attacking Mary, they fall into Christological and Trinitarian errors, as you have just done. You are dividing the person of Christ into separate parts, quantities and portions by dividing Christ's human nature and Divine nature.

Mary did not give birth to a nature, but rather to a Person; a Person who is God. And being God, Christ is sinless in His essence.

Mary, by contrast, is sinless by favor of God.

I cited the Book of Wisdom to give you the Scriptural support for Mary's immaculate conception. Here it is again...

Wisdom 1:4 ---> "For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sin."

Who does Scripture call wisdom? (1 Cor 1:24, 30)

In whose body did wisdom dwell? (Luke 1:31)

---> If Christ is the Wisdom of God and if Mary is the person in whose body He dwelt, then there is the Immaculate Conception.

I am NOT attacking Mary, I merely point out the version of Catholicism that believes in immaculate conception (Pope Pius' 1854 Bull) is different than the version of Catholicism that debated it for centuries.

I confess Mary is the theotokos, "God-bearer" or "mother of God" as Catholics inaccurately say.

There are no Christological or Trinitarian errors in my objection to Immaculate conception of Mary. My objection is soundly based upon Mary's own testimony about herself. God is her Saviour therefore she was not immaculately conceived.

She was a sinner just like the rest of us.

Christ was immaculately conceived because the Holy Spirit made it so, Mary had nothing to do with it:

And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Lk. 1:35 NKJ)

While I agree with applying the Wisdom passages to Christ, they have nothing to say about Mary.

 

[Walpole]

I am NOT attacking Mary, I merely point out the version of Catholicism that believes in immaculate conception (Pope Pius' 1854 Bull) is different than the version of Catholicism that debated it for centuries.

When clarifying is needed as to what is or is not the faith of the Church, a dogma is proclaimed. Hence it's proclamation in 1854.

I confess Mary is the theotokos, "God-bearer" or "mother of God" as Catholics inaccurately say.

That's good to know.

There are no Christological or Trinitarian errors in my objection to Immaculate conception of Mary. My objection is soundly based upon Mary's own testimony about herself. God is her Saviour therefore she was not immaculately conceived.

Yes you did. Here are your objections:

"Jesus Christ never calls the Father His Saviour, BECAUSE He was immaculately conceived."

"Because Catholics claim Mary was immaculately CONCEIVED, Christ's deity is not pertinent. His human nature immaculately CONCEIVED is."


These arguments are based on a fallacious Christology. Christ was not immaculately conceived. He is immaculate in His very essence by virtue of the fact that He is God. You putting forth an argument that He was immaculately conceived divides Christ into separate parts, quantities and portions.

Mary gave birth to a person: Christ - the Logos - who has both a Divine nature and now a human nature received from her. In orthodox Christology, we call this the hypostatic union, which means His "...two natures undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ. (cf Council of Chalcedon, Session V, 451 A.D.)

She was a sinner just like the rest of us.

Please post the verse which states she is a sinner.

Christ was immaculately conceived because the Holy Spirit made it so, Mary had nothing to do with it:

And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Lk. 1:35 NKJ)

This fallacious Christology is addressed above. Your posts demonstrate in near real time how the Church's Marian dogmas safeguard and protect orthodox Trinitarian theology and Christology.

While I agree with applying the Wisdom passages to Christ, they have nothing to say about Mary.

Who then is Wisdom speaking about whose body He dwelled in that is not subject to sin?

Wisdom 1:4 ---> "For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sin."

Who does Scripture call wisdom? (1 Cor 1:24, 30)

In whose body did wisdom dwell? (Luke 1:31)

---> If Christ is the Wisdom of God and if Mary is the person in whose body He dwelt, then there is the Immaculate Conception.

 

[God Is My Judge]

" In Christ is our wisdom" 1. Because He created wisdom and 2. in being born again, in Christ is our access to wisdom. In the OT she is called mother , sister, bride. Bottom line, if Mary is the First to be Conceived by the Imperishible Seed- The Word of God, it is elmentary understanding that Christ, who came to her first , we have recieved because of her yes. Therefore, from her cup to ours, so forth and so on.

Wisdom accompanies the Word of God wherever He goes so,it is true then, to Mary by way of Christ is Wisdom poured upon the house. Think of it as a champagne tower, or wine or living water tower, it always trickles down from the first to the rest. That sign given to the House of David, is the sign of God's mercy and grace.

Grace is unmerited favor. You have no access to Wisdom without Christ's mercy and grace. Wisdom is called sister, mother, bride in the OC prophecies and Proverbs and the Book of Wisdom. Wisdom is always refered to as she and her.

There is a mystery being revealed there. You reject Mary- Daughter of God the Father, Mother of God the Son, Spouse of God the Holy Spirit, you reject wisdom, you have no Wisdom. In Christ is our wisdom. Christ taught that Mary is our mother and that was the last CAP doctrine he taught " Man behold you mother Woman behold your son" before He said it was finished and gave up His Spirit.

We are to take her in to our hearts as mother according to the Word of God just as the apostle John took her in to his home- his heart. You are not really in Christ when bashing and rejecting Mary as mother. Any mother of Christ is a mother of mine. How else could it be? What is for the God Head is for the House!

 

[Alfred Persson]

When clarifying is needed as to what is or is not the faith of the Church, a dogma is proclaimed. Hence it's proclamation in 1854.

That's good to know.

Yes you did. Here are your objections:

"Jesus Christ never calls the Father His Saviour, BECAUSE He was immaculately conceived."

"Because Catholics claim Mary was immaculately CONCEIVED, Christ's deity is not pertinent. His human nature immaculately CONCEIVED is."


These arguments are based on a fallacious Christology. Christ was not immaculately conceived. He is immaculate in His very essence by virtue of the fact that He is God. You putting forth an argument that He was immaculately conceived divides Christ into separate parts, quantities and portions.

Mary gave birth to a person: Christ - the Logos - who has both a Divine nature and now a human nature received from her. In orthodox Christology, we call this the hypostatic union, which means His "...two natures undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ. (cf Council of Chalcedon, Session V, 451 A.D.)

You are confusing the natures, human and divine. It is obvious conception affects Christ's human nature ONLY, not His divine nature.

It is you who violate Chalcedon, confusing the natures, claiming conception pertains to Christ's human and divine nature.

.two natures undergo no confusion,

The heresy is yours, and yours alone. I suggest you revisit the concept of two natures in One Person, you have misunderstood it.

 

[Walpole]

You are confusing the natures, human and divine. It is obvious conception affects Christ's human nature ONLY, not His divine nature.

It is you who violate Chalcedon, confusing the natures, claiming conception pertains to Christ's human and divine nature.

.two natures undergo no confusion,

The heresy is yours, and yours alone. I suggest you revisit the concept of two natures in One Person, you have misunderstood it.

Your repeated assertion that Christ was immaculately conceived is demonstrative of a fallacious Christology and one that is condemned by Chalcedon. Again, arguing Christ was immaculately conceived divides Him into separate parts, quantities and portions. I quoted your words whereby your argument is based on this division in my previous post.

Your assertion is heterodox because Christ is a Divine Person and hence He is sinless in His essence because He is God.

Once again, you are demonstrating in near real time how the Church’s Marian dogmas protect and safeguard orthodox Trinitarian theology and Christology.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Your repeated assertion that Christ was immaculately conceived is demonstrative of a fallacious Christology and one that is condemned by Chalcedon. Again, arguing Christ was immaculately conceived divides Him into separate parts, quantities and portions. I quoted your words whereby your argument is based on this division in my previous post.

Your assertion is heterodox because Christ is a Divine Person and hence He is sinless in His essence because He is God.

Once again, you are demonstrating in near real time how the Church’s Marian dogmas protect and safeguard orthodox Trinitarian theology and Christology.

It is confusing the natures to deny Christ's human nature was immaculately conceived by the Holy Spirit, then incarnated by the Son of God while in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

Jesus Christ our Lord was born, died and rose again all without ANY affect on His divine nature.

6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Phil. 2:6-8 NKJ)

Even while incarnate in human flesh, God the Son never ceased to be infinite God every where:

"No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. (Jn. 3:13 NKJ)

And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (Col. 1:17 NKJ)

You are the one in severe contradiction of Chalcedon, you are confusing the natures denying them separate and distinct existence: two natures undergo no confusion,

My agreement with the council of Chalcedon does not imply I consider it authoritative.

You failed to grasp the Union of the two natures.

The "sphere of infinite radius that is God the Son, became centered in the humanity of Christ", so He is One Person in two natures, one divine (and infinite), the other human (located in time and space just as we).

I confess God's Word is my authority, sola scriptura.

Only God's Word is 100% correct, infallible truth.

That is what primitive Catholics confessed, that God's truth was once for all delivered to the saints:

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3 NKJ)

 

[God Is My Judge]

Your repeated assertion that Christ was immaculately conceived is demonstrative of a fallacious Christology and one that is condemned by Chalcedon. Again, arguing Christ was immaculately conceived divides Him into separate parts, quantities and portions. I quoted your words whereby your argument is based on this division in my previous post.

Your assertion is heterodox because Christ is a Divine Person and hence He is sinless in His essence because He is God.

Once again, you are demonstrating in near real time how the Church’s Marian dogmas protect and safeguard orthodox Trinitarian theology and Christology.

This couldn't be more ignorant if you tried harder.

 

[Walpole]

It is confusing the natures to deny Christ's human nature was immaculately conceived by the Holy Spirit, then incarnated by the Son of God while in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

Have you forgotten what your have been arguing??? Scroll back up.

Once again, Jesus Christ is sinless because He is God. Here again is Chalcedon...

"So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us."

Your argument hinges on Christ being divided into separate parts, quantities and portions. This is in contradiction to Chalcedon.

Jesus Christ our Lord was born, died and rose again all without ANY affect on His divine nature.

Exactly.

6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Phil. 2:6-8 NKJ)

Even while incarnate in human flesh, God the Son never ceased to be infinite God every where:

"No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. (Jn. 3:13 NKJ)

And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. (Col. 1:17 NKJ)

You are the one in severe contradiction of Chalcedon, you are confusing the natures denying them separate and distinct existence: two natures undergo no confusion,

Again, it appears you have forgotten what you posted. Your post divides Christ. He cannot be divided. He is immaculate by virtue of the fact that He is God.

My agreement with the council of Chalcedon does not imply I consider it authoritative.

You failed to grasp the Union of the two natures.

The "sphere of infinite radius that is God the Son, became centered in the humanity of Christ", so He is One Person in two natures, one divine (and infinite), the other human (located in time and space just as we).

I confess God's Word is my authority, sola scriptura.

I find most Protestants claim they agree with the Church's Councils, but in reality they actually have no idea what the Councils taught. For if they knew what the Councils taught, they would see their own beliefs are incompatible with that of the Council Fathers.

Your posts here are a good example. The argument you put forth in your prior posts contradict Chalcedon.

Only God's Word is 100% correct, infallible truth.

That is what primitive Catholics confessed, that God's truth was once for all delivered to the saints:

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3 NKJ)

What are you calling a "primitive Catholic"?