Post published by One Eyed Owl

Nice way to avoid the actual evidence.... ""Faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith." -Gregory of Nyssa. ". Even a baby can understand the meaning of quotes like this.. I've read much more of the Father's than you, and they are Catholic in their doctrines... one doesn't need to have read the entire works to understand this plain statement......

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.”
– Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388). Does this sound like modern Catholic teaching on Mary, or does it sound like P teaching about Mary?

*Protestant (autocorrect)

No Protestant denies that by the late fourth century, Mary was widely accepted as perpetual virgin pre partum, in partu, and post partum. It’s true history can be traced to the third century in the church and finds roots in pseudo gnostic documents like the Protoevangelium of James you can’t trace wide spread belief of perpetual virginity of Mary before the third century. Which is coincidentally around the same time when monasticism exploded out of the eastern church. In other words, Ambrose was wrong on this issue.

Would you like to start a private convo?

We could talk about the immaculate conception and how it was a late fourth century innovation that finds no roots for the first 4 centuries as defined by poi’s ic in 1854 in that convo

The apostles Creed was also composed in the 4th century

You fail to appreciate a principle of history: the immaculate conception was WIDELY acknowledged in various places (by jerome, Ambrose, Augustine in North Africa etc....). That means, they didn't invent it on their own, and were only articulating and developing on already held views on the immaculate conception

So the apostles Creed was also compared in the 4th century.... So why do you accept that alone?

When you encounter evidence from the early church that contradicts your beliefs, you just raise the bar for evidence much higher...... Or ignore it outright....... I've just provided a lot of evidence against Sola fide from the church fathers (even though you tried to claim that the same fathers supported Sola fide). And now you just dismiss and reject any evidence

You say Ambrose was wrong? Then Jerome, Augustine, ephrem the Syrian and so many other fathers and the early church, who supported the sinlessness of Mary, were wrong, while Martin Luther and Calvin were right?

Besides, the "Sinlessness of Mary" is found much earlier than the 4th century, so your claim that it was a 4th century invention is WRONG

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Besides, the sinlessness of Mary is implied by the words of the Angel "Hail Mary, FULL OF GRACE"

I'm beginning to see that evidence is not effective for most people... If someone is biased towards a certain viewpoint, then they ignore or dismiss evidence to the contrary, even if it's plain...

Oh heavens, am I suggesting that some men of the true faith were fallible and incorrect on certain issues? yes... yes I am. Pius IX, when he dogmatized it in 1854, suggested that this belief had been the constant unbroken faith of the church that Mary had been conceived free of original sin. I'm suggesting he was wrong too. On a lot of things he was wrong. I'm not sure how I've raised the bar, perhaps it's because the topic keeps changing.

Yeah, all those church fathers and all their congregations were wrong in their near unanimity about Mary's sinlessness, but Luther was right about "faith alone", which is explicitly contradicted and specifically refuted by scripture (book of James)..

I forgot, even Jesus refuted salvation by faith alone... " Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord will enter heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in Heaven...".

I can't for the life of me figure out why a Roman Catholic would come to a Protestant online community to spout their propaganda and dogma.There are plenty of other places, even on this website, where RCs can kill souls with their synergist and heretical nonsense without it bothering anyone. But that doesn't stop them from coming to a Protestant group as if we agree with them.

"Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." (Acts 16:31)

"These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9).