All have sinned.. including Mary.

[elvisman]

I answered your query in my reply. Scripture teaches that sin is violation of God’s law, and that all unrighteousness (anything not right or opposed to the nature of God) is sin.

I think the difference we are having here is one of the accounting or imputing of sin. Sin is only imputed where there is knowledge of right and wrong. Nevertheless, a thing that is wrong, is still wrong even if the individual is not aware of that. Thus the thing is in and of itself sinful in such a setting.

Do you believe in infant baptism?

No.

So, you don’t believe in infant baptism, presumably because they are not of the age of reason.
BUT . . .
You believe that an infant can, indeed sin???

I think my point is proven. You are simply taking a stand against the Catholic Church because you are an anti-
Catholic. There is no logic, reason or scripture to back up your point.

You have been exposed, my friend . . .

 

[justinthemartyr]

The Vatican wants you to believe that sin is just a stain and that this stain can be washed away with water. That’s not what we read in the Bible. The sin we received from Adam is judgment of condemnation. That means we all go to hell by default unless we are born-again spiritually.

Rom 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Therefore… ALL have sinned including Mary.

Luk 1:46
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

Luk 1:47
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

This is jibberish.

The church does not say that sins are washed away with mere water. the water is the outword SIGN of the inward reality.

you must be kidding. please go and read the catechism before trying to come in here and make calumnious statements concerning your misinformation on church teaching.

and PLEASE, read my last 4 posts, they destroy everything you are trying to build concerning the usage of the term “ALL” in scripture.

and by the way, Mary’s need of a saviour is covered in the catechism also, but you would not know that because you have not read it.

 

[peary]

No.

So, you don’t believe in infant baptism, presumably because they are not of the age of reason.
BUT . . .
You believe that an infant can, indeed sin???

I think my point is proven. You are simply taking a stand against the Catholic Church because you are an anti-
Catholic. There is no logic, reason or scripture to back up your point.

You have been exposed, my friend . . .

:clapping:

 

[MrS]

This is jibberish.

The church does not say that sins are washed away with mere water. the water is the outword SIGN of the inward reality.

.

Exactly. And the first Pope, Peter, was infallible in sthe Scripture when he said “…baptism now saves you…”

Just as Jesus said “…unless you are baptized by water and ther Spirit…”

.

 

[Syele]

How can they HAVE any personal sin when they don’t understand on any level that what they are doing is in fact wrong? I can’t believe you’d think they are sinners!

Because right and wrong are not dependent on who does it or when. Right and wrong are absolutes. God never changes.

If your six-month old baby breaks your priceless vase you don’t punish them for it, do you? You don’t even think of them as having done any wrong, do you? I sincerely hope not, because you’d be incredibly unnatural.

You might wince at the damage, but you say to yourself ‘s/he is just a baby, s/he didn’t know’ and leave it at that, no?

Breaking expensive vases is not sin in itself. God never says “Thou shalt not break expensive things.” Accidents are not sin either. Small babies really only are learning to obey parents and to see the world as something other than centered totally on THEM. Many are crawling by 6-months and walking by 7-12 months. They vary just as adults do but this means that 6-month olds are very curious and mobile. They are curious at that age. Curiosity is not a sin either. Many babies are able to understand that mommy or daddy do not want them to do certian things. If we do not consistantly teach them that to disobey mommy is wrong we are doing them a disservice, you will eventually have a spoiled bratty kid. I not saying punish a baby! I saying that you still teach them. If my baby was crawling near a breakable vase, I physically remove them from the area. If they go right back to it I would say “no” and remove them from such an area. Letting them know mommy does not approve in simple tone of voice. Disobeying Mommy is not right, tiny babies do not understand. So you dont punish them, you teach them - show them from the beginning. Showing a child at different ages means doing differernt things. One should not Punish babies but teach them, they learn an incredible amount in the first two years on an amazing number of subjects.

God doesn’t have mercy upon the ignorant, he recognises that they knew no better and, I am sure, as any parent would, doesn’t count their behaviour as an offence at all.

God is just and unchanging. What is sin, is still sin no matter who does it. But we have a merciful and loving God in addition to a Just One. He not only recognizes our sin even when we don’t, but He teaches us so we wont repeat it AND he is merciful and does not punish us for things we do not understand. A God who simply ignores His childrens sin and does not teach is not the one I read of in scriptures.

 

[HiggDo]

I guess that you don’t believe in **ALL **American History you weren’t there or how Christopher Colombus discover America you weren’t there, wow History is a big lie!!!

The problem with history is that it is often recorded in a subjective manner, the writer writes and records from his point of view and many times that point of view is skewed, reshaped, one sided or even down right biased. In short, while the main theme of the object recorded in history might be accurate (Columbus “discovers” America) the surrounding details may not be or might be slanted. Was Columbus really the first human being to discover America?

To witness this more clearly, all you have to do is watch American presidents attempt to “rewrite” their legacy, often using the media or other corruptible “authorities” to accomplish their goals.

Sacred Scripture, however, has God as its authority and overseer. As such, there is no biased skewing within Sacred Scripture. It is Infallible bacause God is infallible. “Id est quod id est”

Recorded history is not infallible like God’s Word is.

Just thought I’d add my 2 cents in, this is a great thread! I’m so proud of you defenders of the Catholic Faith!

 

[peary]

The problem with history is that it is often recorded in a subjective manner, the writer writes and records from his point of view and many times that point of view is skewed, reshaped, one sided or even down right biased. In short, while the main theme of the object recorded in history might be accurate (Columbus “discovers” America) the surrounding details may not be or might be slanted. Was Columbus really the first human being to discover America?

To witness this more clearly, all you have to do is watch American presidents attempt to “rewrite” their legacy, often using the media or other corruptible “authorities” to accomplish their goals.

Sacred Scripture, however, has God as its authority and overseer. As such, there is no biased skewing within Sacred Scripture. It is Infallible bacause God is infallible. “Id est quod id est”

Recorded history is not infallible like God’s Word is.

**That is not exactly accurate. True historians look for FACTS, not opinions, on events. They are professionally trained to do this. Historians record objective facts and events as they happened; they don’t make them up. To do otherwise is to lend incredulity to their craft. Some interject their opinion into matters but most just establish what was and what happened. It is also the job of the historian to ‘interpret’ events in the sense that “this and this happened which resulted in this event.” Some agree with each other; some don’t.

But isn’t it the same way with scripture? Interpretation as to whether or not it is the inspired written word of God? Interpretation has led to 33,000+ denominations, all saying something different as to what scripture says, and all of them adamant that they are interpreting it correctly.

It is and has always been my contention that since the Scripture has been and is preserved by the Church, it is the Church that has the proper authority to interpret it. The New Testament scriptures are, of course, the early memoirs of the Church and reveals exactly what the Church was teaching back then. To divorce sacred Scripture from the Church which produced it probably borders on arrogance and ingratitude.**

 

[Rolltide]

I stated:

The Catholic councils of Carthage and Hippo were in part responsible for the decision of which scriptures to include. This was later reaffirmed by the pope (I believe at the Council of Rome). No complete Bible even existed until St. Jerome compiled the Vulgate in the early 400s AD. (Yes… all the scriptures were there, but not under one cover, and not in a single language that all could read.)

You can trust me on this… I’m a professional historian.

Then you stated:

I’ll respond to this before I go… Here’s the problem. You believe this like it is scripture. **Unless you were there… you don’t know what your believing is 100% accurate. **Almighty God said that we are to be sanctified through God’s truth which is the Word of God.

Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

He did not say trust in professional historians and history of the Roman Catholic Church. We are to believe God and take Him at His Word.

Your statement is very disturbing. What you have just done is call into question the very validity of Scripture itself! Where do you think it came from? Did it just drop out of the air complete? We have very good records that describe the process of the compilation of the Bible. If you are stating that there is no way to know if the process of compiling the Bible was 100% accurate, well… sola scriptura just went out the window, because scripture itself becomes unreliable.

Why don’t we take a bit more in-depth look at the compilation of the Bible. I’ll take this from the same lecture that I give my students (which, by the way, is at a private PROTESTANT college)!

First, here’s a website that lists not only books that made it into the Bible, but some of the MANY books that did not make it in:

earlychristianwritings.com

Ok, for about the first 70 or so years of Christianity, obviously, there were no scriptures. It took some amount of time for them to be written down, so between the death of Jesus and about 100 AD, the books of the New Testament that we use today were still being written. The last book to be written that was included is generally accepted to be Revelation. The first couple of generations of Christians obviously had a resource that was even more important than the Bible… they could literally talk to eyewitnesses like the Apostles and Paul themselves.

So, by about 100 AD, all of the scriptures existed, at least on paper. However, other accounts of early Christianity were continuing to be written, along with many forgeries and folk tales about the life of Jesus and early Christians. Documents purporting to be Holy Scripture continued to be written until 250 AD. Important to note is the fact that there is nothing called “The Bible” yet in existence. The individual books are around, but no one is quite sure which books to read. The scriptures available to people in different areas of the Roman empire varied wildly, although by probably 150 AD, there was already agreement that at least the four main gospels were inspired. The Letters of Paul were also in wide circulation, although certain letters might be missing from a congregation here or there. Everything else was fair game though. Many faithful Christian congregations believed books like the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas were inspired, and included them in their services. (There is nothing inherently heretical in any of these three texts, by the way. It was simply decided upon later that they were not inspired.) Others had problems with books like Revelation, 2 Peter, and the Epistle of James, and intentionally left them out. The vast size of the Roman empire made communicating beliefs between the various underground churches in places as varied as Egypt, Asia Minor, Jerusalem, Greece, Rome, and so on very difficult. Some local congregations even began using some of the unaccepted scriptures, and several other early variations of Christianity arose as a result of their confusion over what books to include. Most problematic were the use of so-called “Gnostic” texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[Rolltide]

So what were these early variants of Christianity like? The three other groups that arose were the Gnostics, the Docetists, and the Arians. I will cite the summaries of these groups from the book “Catholicism for Dummies” since they manage to explain them very briefly.

Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis, for knowledge. During the first century BC to the fifth century AD, Gnostics believed in secret knowledge, whereas the Judeo-Christians were free and public about disclosing the truth divinely revealed by God. Gnostics believed that the material world was evil and the only way to salvation was through discovering the “secrets” of the universe. This belief flew in the face of the Hebrew and Christian religions, which believed that God created the world (Genesis) and that it was good, not evil. Keeping revelation secret wasn’t meant to be; rather, it should be shared openly with others.

(This “hidden wisdom”, btw, was supposedly hidden within the texts of documents like the Gospel of Thomas. Anyone that could crack the code, regardless of their actions during life, could make it into heaven. That means that heaven was reserved for an elite few, and it didn’t matter if you were Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler, as long as you could crack the code. You can begin to see why early Christian bishops (including several trained by the apostles themselves) begin fighting this belief very seriously.)

Docetism comes from the Greek word dokesis, meaning appearance. Docetists, a spin-off from Gnosticism, first and second centuries AD, asserted that Jesus Christ only appeared to be human. They considered the material world, including the human body, so evil and corrupt that God, who is all good, couldn’t have assumed a real human body and human nature. He must have pretended.

The Gnostic antagonism between between the spiritual and the material worlds led Docetists to deny that Jesus was true man. They had no problem with his divinity, only with believing in his real humanity. So if that part was an illusion, then the horrible and immense suffering and death of Jesus on the cross means nothing. If his human nature was a parlor trick, then his Passion also was an illusion.

Note that, even today, remnants of neo-Gnosticism are in some modern ideologies and theories of religion. New Age spirituality and Dianetics, which is the Church of Scientology, propose to reveal secrets and unlock secret powers of human nature. Docetism seems to have died out pretty much, however.

Arianism was the most dangerous and prolific of the heresies in the early Church. Arianism comes from a cleric named Arius in the forth century (AD 250-336), who denied the divinity of Jesus. Whereas Docetism denied his humanity, Arianism denied that Jesus had a truly divine nature equal to God the Father.

Arius proposed that Jesus was created and wasn’t of the same substance as God – he was considered higher than any man or angel, because he possessed a similar substance, or essence, but he was never equal to God. His Son-ship was one of adoption. In Arianism, Jesus became the Son, whereas in orthodox Christianity, he was, is, and will always be the Son, with no beginning and no end.

Arianism caught on like wildfire, because it appealed to people’s knowledge that only one God existed, and if Jesus was also God, it could appear as if two gods existed instead of only one.

Emperor Constantine, living in the Eastern Roman Empire, was afraid that the religious discord would endanger the security of the realm (especially now that he had become the first Roman emperor to legalize Christianity). He saw how animate and aggressive the argument became and ordered that a council of all the bishops, the patriarchs, and the pope convene to settle the issue once and for all. The imperial city of Nicea was chosen to guarantee safety. In Nicea, the world’s bishops decided to compose a creed that every believer was to learn and profess as being the substance of Christian faith. That same creed is now recited every Sunday and Holy Day at Catholic (and Orthodox) services all over the world. It’s known as the Nicene Creed, because it came from the Council of Nicea in AD 325. Without this creed, even the concept of the Trinity remained in doubt, because there STILL was no definitive decision on what books belonged in the Bible. It took a council of Catholic Bishops, along with tradition that had been handed down through them, in order to determine the truth. A consensus also emerged, however, that a definitive canon of scripture needed to be determined.

 

[Rolltide]

Pope Damasus I called the Council of Rome in 382 AD in part to begin answering the question of canonizing scripture. For the first time, a scriptural canon the same as what we use today had been determined. This list was reaffirmed at the Council of Hippo in 392 AD, and the Council of Carthage in 396 AD, which were called to once and for all end all debate about the matter. Many criteria were used for the selection of the books. Generally, books that were written after the death of the last Apostle (John) were rejected. Many documents were clearly much later forgeries. Gnostic documents were also thrown out because many were clearly written much later, and those that were early had been condemned by a wide variety of bishops in the first generation after the Apostles. Still others were rejected simply because they weren’t considered inspired, or because they contained a few too many factual errors. Still, many of these documents contain important truths about the early church. So, FINALLY, by 392 BC, almost 400 years after Jesus Christ, people could locate all of the inspired Scriptures in one place in a single volume and read them… or could they?

You see, there was STILL a problem! The Old Testament remained in Hebrew, while the New Testament was circulation in Greek. Very few people in the ancient world could read both languages, and so it was determined that a single translation in the vulgar tongue (the most common vernacular language of the time, Latin) would need to be compiled. St. Jerome took to this task. He began his work in 390 AD, and had his translation, today known as the Vulgate, completed by 405 AD. Now, finally, a Bible was in circulation that the masses could all read without assistance. Ironically, however, it was completed only shortly before the downfall of Rome, and with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, the literacy rate in Western Europe plummeted to almost zero. Most Christian learning would still have to take place orally. (As an aside, this is why most Catholic churches from this era contain huge numbers of statues, paintings, and stained glass windows. With an inability to read the Bible, the images were greatly helpful in orally teaching the Bible, which would be recited by the priest.)

So, for the first twenty percent of Christianity, there was no single Bible that people could use at all. It was the result of Pope Damasus I and the various Catholic councils that were called that the Bible was codified. It took these actions to determine the inspiration of the various books. It’s also important to note that without the action of Catholic bishops or the Council of Nicea, these other clear heresies might have fragmented Christianity to the point where it wouldn’t have survived. (Remember, Christianity that early was still considered by many to be a sub-sect of an already small religion, Judaism.) Further, it took that council to once and for all define the concept of the Trinity against the other heresies. For all of that time, tradition was absolutely equal and side-by-side in importance with the Holy Scriptures.

I’ll give you some time to digest this…Don’t take my opinion of it, look at the historical facts. The process of the codification of the Bible is pretty well documented with first-hand accounts

 

[Jimmy_B]

God confirmed that the Virgin Mary is sinless, as confirmed by the constant teaching of the Magisterium, and yes, that is enough for me.

She is also a Virgin.

She was also conceived without original sin.

She is also in heaven, body and soul.

God also confirmed these truths, though the legitimate teaching authority of the Church.

She is blessed indeed, as she said.

Scott

 

[HiggDo]

That is not exactly accurate. True historians look for FACTS, not opinions, on events. They are professionally trained to do this. Historians record objective facts and events as they happened; they don’t make them up. To do otherwise is to lend incredulity to their craft. Some interject their opinion into matters but most just establish what was and what happened. It is also the job of the historian to ‘interpret’ events in the sense that “this and this happened which resulted in this event.” Some agree with each other; some don’t…

Then why do some historians try to rewrite history books for the the classrom, omitting important facts or events? I say, history is in the eye of the writer.

To agree with some your statement, some “true”, apparently meaning honest and objective, historians might give an unbiased and factual account, but certainly not all- therefore, in looking at Columbus, did he really “discover” America? It is that purported discovery that has led to a National holiday and belief system for millions of people… But, rhetorically speaking, (I don’t want to get into the nuance that he is the discoverer within his specific point in history or for the peoples he represents) is that statement a totally historically accurate one?

I appreciate your defense of the credibility of historians, but you can’t tell me that within the imperfect inclination of human beings that historical writings are 100% factual and infallible.

But isn’t it the same way with scripture? Interpretation as to whether or not it is the inspired written word of God? Interpretation has led to 33,000+ denominations, all saying something different as to what scripture says, and all of them adamant that they are interpreting it correctly…

Certainly, that is why hundreds if not thousands of mythical and philosophical concepts and ideas were disregarded from history. The ancient Gnostics were famous for drastically distorting the Faith for their point of views, yet they would insist that their historical collection of beliefs was “true” and accurate.

It is and has always been my contention that since the Scripture has been and is preserved by the Church, it is the Church that has the proper authority to interpret it. .

I agree wholeheartedly. But mostly, because the Church recieves its authority directly from God.

** The New Testament scriptures are, of course, the early memoirs of the Church and reveals exactly what the Church was teaching back then. To divorce sacred Scripture from the Church which produced it probably borders on arrogance and ingratitude.**

Amen!

 

[Rolltide]

Then why do some historians try to rewrite history books for the the classrom, omitting important facts or events? I say, history is in the eye of the writer.

To agree with some your statement, some “true”, apparently meaning honest and objective, historians might give an unbiased and factual account, but certainly not all- therefore, in looking at Columbus, did he really “discover” America? It is that purported discovery that has led to a National holiday and belief system for millions of people… But, rhetorically speaking, (I don’t want to get into the nuance that he is the discoverer within his specific point in history or for the peoples he represents) is that statement a totally historically accurate one?

I appreciate your defense of the credibility of historians, but you can’t tell me that within the imperfect inclination of human beings that historical writings are 100% factual and infallible.

Historians like myself always try to be as unbiased as possible, presenting alternative points of view when necessary. In the end, however, if you’re going to make sense of the facts, you have to have an interpretation. It’s not a sin to have a bias, but your conclusions should be completely apparent within your writings. (In other words, people should be able to distinguish my interpretations from the first-hand facts that I present, and I should present clear documentation so that people can investigate them for themselves.) That’s why so many books are written about the same thing. Did you know that history is the most rewritten subject next to science? In part, that’s because new documents are always being found, but also, as society changes, the implications of history also change.

 

[mozart-250]

One comment…

Just because
(1) “All” is not consistently used in the sense of 100% in the Bible
(2) All in Romans 3:23 probably does not mean 100% of all non-deity humans who ever lived and/or are alive now on planet earth (unless you want to argue that aborted babies are in this all)

This still gives me absolutely no reason to believe that Mary is excluded from the “all” of Romans 3:23.

It is one thing to exclude from this scripture categories of humans that do not have the ability to sin (whatever these categories may be). It is another thing to exclude someone who obviously is not in any excluded category.

 

[KJK80]

What about Enoch?

 

[vocatio]

I remember in junior high school in Louisiana, the most insulting thing you can do to a boy is insult his mother. Need I say more what happens next. Put em up…

Now, I’ve kicked this around for ever because I walked away from Catholicism in 89’. I questions the perpetual virginity too. But not in some anti-Catholic rhetorical way. I wondered if it was true. But then, why would the church insist on making up something so silly? It didn’t make sense then and I don’t by the goddess Diana analogy. But I always reserved that it is very likely that Mary remained a virgin her entire life. So further why Mary. I beleive that Mary was sinless at the time of conception as the Orthodox beleive [something like that] but after thinking more, it does make sense that she was conceived without sin for the purpose of conceiving a special child.

There’s more but gotta get back to work.

 

[Cleopas]

Elvisman (and Peary by exstension),

I assumed your intent was to attempt to lay some trap with the infant baptism question.

Yet, there was nothing anti-Catholic in my reply.
You asked.
I answered.

The only thing about my answer that could be construed as anti-Catholic is merely that I disagree with a practice Catholics accept. Likewise I disagree with Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians regarding infant baptism.

I don’t appreciate being unjustly accused.

Furthermore, not being Catholic, and new to the forums, perhaps my arguments are not yet of sufficient worth to merit reply, but why is it the content of my replies have largely been skipped over? Yet believer’s replies have been meticulously dissected?

 

[whizkid43]

Elvisman (and Peary by exstension),
Furthermore, not being Catholic, and new to the forums, perhaps my arguments are not yet of sufficient worth to merit reply, but why is it the content of my replies have largely been skipped over? Yet believer’s replies have been meticulously dissected?

Well, while you may disagree you appear to be reasonable, rational and interested in honest dialogue.

believer, on the other hand, and Super Sola, the day before are folks that come here with a prepared programmed agenda to argue and not resolve anything. Basically just insult us “unchurched Catholic folk”.

Also, those folks also practice the art of “when you can’t get your way” start another thread… I completely stopped posting on their threads, it’s a waste of time…

Anyway, don’t feel left out, we’ll get to you next

Just kidding, welcome looking forward to some honest and reasonable interchange of opinions.

God bless.

 

[HiggDo]

Historians like myself always try to be as unbiased as possible, presenting alternative points of view when necessary. In the end, however, if you’re going to make sense of the facts, you have to have an interpretation. It’s not a sin to have a bias, but your conclusions should be completely apparent within your writings. (In other words, people should be able to distinguish my interpretations from the first-hand facts that I present, and I should present clear documentation so that people can investigate them for themselves.) That’s why so many books are written about the same thing. Did you know that history is the most rewritten subject next to science? In part, that’s because new documents are always being found, but also, as society changes, the implications of history also change.

LOL… I think we started a thread within a thread…

I know it isn’t a sin to have a bias or interpretation, but it is a bias or interpretation just the same… and it isn’t always made prevalent. I’m sure one could Google “unethical historians” or “untruthful historians” and come up with quite a few examples- just as in any arena of humanity. How about “unethical journalists”? hehe

How about the ancient historians that were often tied into political structures or ruling familes? Were their records of history 100% unbiased?

But I will trust that you are a “true” historian, one that is devoted to the credibility and honesty of your craft.



Nobody can question God’s infalliblity with any real sustaining credibility, but we sure can question man’s interpretations. Thank goodness He set up His Church…

 

[LittleOne1]

Let us not forget in 1 Corithians 15:25
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
This means that Christ will only reign until all enemies are conquered. Then he will not reign anymore. Now do not try to tell me that until does not indicate to a certain event that is accomplished because as we have seen in earlier passages of the bible, Christ said in Matthew 13:30 “Let both grow until the harvest” meaning they will not grow after the harvest. Therefore Christ will not reign after after all enemies are under his feet (no this is not mean the man Christ will not reign anymore; it means the Christ man/God). I think everyone should know this truth; that Christ will only reign up UNTIL a certain point.
" 'The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” Again this confirms that Christ will sit at God’s right until the end of time and then no longer rule/reign (unless you try to argue fr eternity the work of placing enemies under Christ’s feet will be ongoing-so Christ will never conquer I guess if the process is ongoing).

Now some may try to say I took it out of context, but the facts are there. He will only reign UNTIL a certain point just like ALL have sinned.