All have sinned.. including Mary.

[guanophore]

A person can compare what the catholic church teaches in its doctrines and compare that with what the scriptures say. For example take praying Mary. Where do we see in Scripture any prayers to Mary? Is there any exhortation from Jesus or His apostles to do so? The answers are no. This is not an apostolic teaching but a doctrine and tradition of men.

A person could do this, but such a one would be proceeding from a false premise. The Catholic Teachings did not come from the Bible. In fact, the opposite is true, and the NT reflects the Church Teachings. The NT was never intended to contain everything, and it states as much about itself. Not only that, since Mary was still alive when the majority of the NT was written, doesn’t it make sense that the Apostles went to her in person and asked her for her prayers?

You are making a false assumption that all the Apostolic Teachings are in the NT, which is not the case.

But, let’s say for the sake of discussion that it is a tradition of men. So are “altar calls”, which are frequently practiced. They are not in the NT either, but they are not in any way harmful, are they? If a person continually answers the call of God, and throws oneself to the knees to dedicate oneself to God, is this spiritually harmful?

Just because a tradition is not in the Bible does not make it wrong either.

.
This is not suprising. This happens in all areas of knowledge. The same is true about catholics and church doctrines. Not all catholics believe that same things about these matters.

There is one standard of Catholic doctrine. Those who do not embrace it are not Catholic to some extent. Many who call themselves “Catholic” are so nominally only, and are really Protestant in faith and practice.

For me personally not much. It does trouble me deeply what catholics and those who claim to follow Christ are not discerning what the catholic church teaches them.

Why does this trouble you so deeply, ja4? How come you can’t just let it go?

Why do you assume that Catholics don’t discern? Don’t you realize by now that many of us here have spent decades working out our salvation? Do you think if we were rightly discerning, we would believe like you do?

Its not about my walk in Christ being closer but about my being obedient to follow Christ and engage those for the truth of Christ. Read the letters of Paul for example. He was admant about the churches he founded believe the truth and reject false teachings. He labored consistently over this point. How can i be any different?

If you are following the will of the Lord, won’t that make your relationship with Him closer? If you are engaged in a labor of love, will not your love of Him be increased, as well as the love you have for others?

One way to discern one’s choices is by the fruit they bear. On CAF, the fruit you bear is divisive, insulting, and bigotry. Is this Christs labor?

Here is a little ditty that I use to check myself. A pastor suggested that one replace the word “love” with one’s own name.

1 Cor 13:4-7

4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

Here is how it might look:

ja4 is patient and kind; ja4 is not jealous or boastful; 5 ja4 is not arrogant or rude. ja4 does not insist on his ts own way; ja4 is not irritable or resentful; 6 ja4 does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7 ja4 bears all things, ja4 believes all things, ja4 hopes all things, ja4 endures all things.

Are ja4’s postings patient and kind? Does he come across as arrogant or rude? Does he insist on his own way? Is he irritable or resentful? Does ja4 rejoice at wrong? Does ja4 bear with Catholics? Does he believe in the best for Catholics? Does he hope all things for Catholics? Does he endure all things for Catholics?

Is ja4 here to be loving to his neighbor?

 

[justasking4]

KJK80;3494158]

Let’s look at the words you used… “CHURCHES HE FOUNDED”

He was directly responsible for the beliefs of the church’s he was involved in. As in the Catholic church, the Pope is responsible for the beliefs of the church’s which are in union with him. However, the Pope is not responsible for the beliefs of the Baptist church (just for an example). Nor is the conference president of the Seventh-day Adventist church (just for another example) responsible for the beliefs of the Roman Catholic church (for an example).

The SDA’s conference president is responsible for the SDA church.

The pope is responsible for the Roman Catholic Church (amongst others).

All of these people are men, but in the case of the Roman Catholic church, under Catholic faith, no pope has caused the church to error on matters of doctrine.

It is not true to say no pope caused the church to error. We have Pope Homarius who was condemned by councils as a heretic and what of the pope who with Tetzel supposedly abused the sale of indulgences. Was this pope in error for doing this?

It is NOT your responsibility to point out your conceived errors of the Catholic church. It IS my duty to defend Jesus Christ. It is NOT my duty to point out the errors of other’s faith (though I am guilty of the attempt to do so, and I am working on that, actively).

Who says whose responsible for what?

Regardless, I cannot find any scriptural support for you to have the authority to attempt to prove Catholicism false or to have false doctrines to Catholic’s. Though your right to free speech does allow this, it is not something that is supported, scripturally.

Did Paul have the right to tell the Cornthians that they were wrong about their pagan beliefs?

Do missionaries have the right to do this when they go into cultures that have false beliefs?

 

[estesbob]

If you are referring to the deutrocanonical books of the OT there are good reasons to reject them as inspired scripture.

If the reasons are so good why did it take nearly 1,600 years for anyone to do so?

That is , BTW, the fatal flaw of Protestanism-the idea that the Church was in error for 1,500 years after its founding.

 

[KJK80]

It is not true to say no pope caused the church to error. We have Pope Homarius who was condemned by councils as a heretic and what of the pope who with Tetzel supposedly abused the sale of indulgences. Was this pope in error for doing this?

Read what I wrote and get back with me.

Who says whose responsible for what?

Huh?

Did Paul have the right to tell the Cornthians that they were wrong about their pagan beliefs?

Did Paul found the church in Corinth?

Likewise, did you found the Catholic church? Or even one physical Catholic church? Are you a [Roman] Catholic? [just picking one]

Do missionaries have the right to do this when they go into cultures that have false beliefs?

Depends on your definition of false belief. If false belief = not Christian then yes. If your definition of false belief is Christian but not holding to the same doctrines as you, then no.

 

[NDfan]

Praise God for your sons healing. God is so wonderful to his children.

Thanks for the kind words GOD certainly does care for HIS children.

Mary has to be sinless because God made the prophecy that she would be from the fall of our first parents.

Where does HE make this prophecy?

If Mary could be proven to have sinned, the incarnation of Jesus, will become tainted as sinner.

I disagree. Jesus cannot be tainted for 2 reasons.

1. HE is GOD incarnate and GOD cannot be tainted with sin
2. Mary conveived through the Holy Spirit. Sin is from the seed of man and Mary did not conceive from a man.

For one when God created with his word, that every seed bearing shall produce from it the same seed. A woman has no seed, the man carries the seed.

Exactly. This is why Jesus could not be tainted. Mary conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. She didn’t have to be sinless for Jesus to not be tainted.

Mary being a virgin explains the seed, secondly when the first Eve fell, sin entered and woman is cursed with birth pains as a result with original sin. Mary had no birth pains, thus the sin of our first parents, Mary was without original sin.

How do you know Mary had no birth pains? Have you ever read this quote from Pope Innocent the third:

“She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.”

He’s basically stating that Eve was produced without sin but brought sin into the world. Mary was produced with sin but brought Jesus forth who had no sin.

PEACE

 

[guanophore]

Gabriel I wouldn’t disagree with you. Any miracle GOD performs is incredible. My son has just been healed of a brain tumor. It didn’t matter how GOD did it but just the fact that he healed him was miraculous.

The only question I would like to ask you is why does Mary have to be sinless?

PEACE

This is a good question, and I think the answer is that she did not. God could have chosen to appear on earth in a human body already grown. Instead, He chose to come through the seed of a woman. For that reason, God preserved that seed without the stain of original sin. I also think that God wanted to show in Mary what could have been shown in Eve, had she obeyed, and that is the plan He has for all of mankind.

 

[NDfan]

This is a good question, and I think the answer is that she did not. God could have chosen to appear on earth in a human body already grown. Instead, He chose to come through the seed of a woman. For that reason, God preserved that seed without the stain of original sin. I also think that God wanted to show in Mary what could have been shown in Eve, had she obeyed, and that is the plan He has for all of mankind.

I’m confused by your answer. I was asking why she would have to be sinless? In other words, why couldn’t Mary be a normal person who sinned like the rest of us?

GOD all throughout history has used sinful people to do great things. If Mary was sinless then why did she take a sin offering to the Temple after Jesus was born? Why aren’t the scriptures emphatic about her sinlessness? Considering that every human being that ever lived and walked the face of the earth committed sin except Jesus, I would think Mary’s lack of sin would be a huge topic that would get major attention in scripture.

In fact it’s not directly stated that she was sinless. It’s being drawn out of the word kecharitooménee which means highly favoured. It wasn’t until the Latin version of this translation to English made it full of grace. The Greek clearly means highly favoured. Jesus never refers to Mary as sinless, neither does Paul. Mark’s Gospel which is the earliest mentions Mary only one time. The book of Acts also has only one reference to her. In church history there is little or no adoration of Mary recorded for about the first 4 centuries.

Surely this unbelievable historical attribute of Mary being sinless would be seen somewhere in scripture.

PEACE

 

[guanophore]

Yes. There is only one High Priest Who intercedes for us and that is the Lord Jesus. To say the Mary and those who have died intercede for us is to make them something that they are not i.e. high priests who intercede for us.

Do you really believe that Jesus does not allow His people to enter into His priestly ministry? Do you think all the requests in the NT to pray for one another are out of order?

How do you go about in life to determine which interpretation of something is correct or not? We do this by looking at the facts that support the interpretation and are they being used correctly. We can look at the meanings of words and the context which helps us greatly to determine if they are being used correctly.

This is true, but we can also look to Divine Revelation, which many times, may appear contrary to “facts”.

1 Cor 1:24-25
Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

We know that Jesus fulfilled all the OT laws and regulations. Keeping the Sabbath was never mandated by the church in Acts or the NT letters. In fact Paul in Colossians 2:16-17 calls the sabbath a mere shadow of what is to come. The meeting on Sundays was something the church did because that was the day Christ rose.

Yes, but now we have come to it. It was the Authority of the Church, and not the Scripture that allowed the observance of the Sabbath to occur on Sunday. Here is one of those golden nuggets for you, ja4. This is a Sacred Tradition we have from the Apostles that is not in scripture. We find references to it, like we do to all Catholic teaching (like purgatory) but we see no explicit command that changes or overturns the original commandment given to Moses.

I’m not referring to people who don’t have knowledge but those that do. I know a few knowledgeable catholics who have different views on doctrines. You can see it even on these forums.

To the extent that they do not embrace the Teaching of the Church, they are not Catholic.

I agree. However on the essentials there are agreements. Things such as Christ is God, died for our sins and rose again would be some essentials that are agreed uopn.

Who decides which are the “essentials”?

There are many catholics out here and in my life who are not discerning deeply about the marian doctrines for example and the implications of them.

I think this is true. I think there are many people who don’t deeply discern the meaning of answering dozens of altar calls over the course of a lifetime, too.

First is to know the Scriptures well then compare that with what others teach.

Knowing the Scripture is a good thing, but they are not meant to be known or understood apart from the Sacred Tradition which produced them.

It is not true to say no pope caused the church to error. We have Pope Homarius who was condemned by councils as a heretic and what of the pope who with Tetzel supposedly abused the sale of indulgences. Was this pope in error for doing this?

A bad example is regrettable, but it is not the same as teaching error. In fact, the reason the Church came out so strongly against Honorious and the scandal of indulgences is to make it clear that they were not acting consistently with Teachings of Jesus that came to us from the Apostles. Men falling into error is not the same as the Church falling into error.

Who says whose responsible for what?

That would be the Lord!

Rom 13:1
there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

And He gave the Authority to the Apostles:

Matt 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

And they passed this to their successors, the Bishops. This is why we say that those who are not part of the Apostolic Succession do not have Authority. It was not given to them by God.

(hint: ja4 is not part of the apostolic succession)

Did Paul have the right to tell the Cornthians that they were wrong about their pagan beliefs?

Yes, he was appointed by God.

Acts 9:15-16
15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”

Do you have such an appointment?

Do missionaries have the right to do this when they go into cultures that have false beliefs?

That depends upon whether they are acting under the Apostolic Succession.

 

[guanophore]

1. HE is GOD incarnate and GOD cannot be tainted with sin
2. Mary conveived through the Holy Spirit. Sin is from the seed of man and Mary did not conceive from a man.

Great! Science has succeeded in cloning females without any “male seed”. Does this mean that all cloned females are immaculately conceived!? :newidea:

 Exactly.  This is why Jesus could not be tainted.  Mary conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.  She didn't have to be sinless for Jesus to not be tainted.

Well, He took His flesh from her flesh and she was born from a man and a woman, so how is it he was prevented from taint from her flesh?

 

[NDfan]

Great! Science has succeeded in cloning females without any “male seed”. Does this mean that all cloned females are immaculately conceived!? :newidea:

Not sure what your point is here. Mary was conceived through a man and woman and would therefore be tainted. Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot be tainted.

Well, He took His flesh from her flesh and she was born from a man and a woman, so how is it he was prevented from taint from her flesh?

Because sin is carried from the seed of man. Jesus was not conceived from man. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. This made HIM sinless. Jesus was also GOD incarnate. Is GOD tainted with sin?

 

[KJK80]

Not sure what your point is here. Mary was conceived through a man and woman and would therefore be tainted. Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot be tainted.

Because sin is carried from the seed of man. Jesus was not conceived from man. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. This made HIM sinless. Jesus was also GOD incarnate. Is GOD tainted with sin?

So the male seed is what transmits sin to the child? The woman does not hold any responsibility for transmitting sin?

Maybe I’m phrasing this wrong, or understanding what you wrote incorrectly.

 

[guanophore]

Not sure what your point is here. Mary was conceived through a man and woman and would therefore be tainted. Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot be tainted.

I agree that He cannot be tainted, but it is because He is divine, and not because He was not seeded by man. He still took flesh of Mary’s flesh, and if she was not immaculately conceived, then He took flesh tainted by original sin.

Because sin is carried from the seed of man. Jesus was not conceived from man. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. This made HIM sinless. Jesus was also GOD incarnate. Is GOD tainted with sin?

He would be if he took tainted flesh to himself.

 

[brkn1]

Great! Science has succeeded in cloning females without any “male seed”. Does this mean that all cloned females are immaculately conceived!? :newidea:

Is there some link or evidence to support your claim that there are cloned female humans in existence? This is news to me.

 

[KJK80]

Is there some link or evidence to support your claim that there are cloned female humans in existence? This is news to me.

There is no claim for cloned female humans… where do you see one?

 

[HiggDo]

I’ve read this entire post, a couple of times, and all I can say is…

“The wheels on the bus go round and round… round and round…round and round … The wheels on the bus go round and round… round and round… all through the town…”



And meanwhile, as men seek understanding of their faith, God is at work, tilling His garden. Praise be to God!

God bless each of you for this beautiful discussion…

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of death.
Amen.

 

[NDfan]

So the male seed is what transmits sin to the child? The woman does not hold any responsibility for transmitting sin?

Maybe I’m phrasing this wrong, or understanding what you wrote incorrectly.

I’m not saying the woman has no responsibility. I’m saying that Jesus was not conceived by Mary having intercourse with a man. This would have produced a child tainted with sin. Unless GOD wanted to pardon that child as you claim he did with Mary. But this is exactly what GOD did with Jesus by having Mary conceive through the Holy Spirit. The power of the Holy Spirit prevented Jesus from being tainted from sin. Not the fact that Mary was sinless. That would imply that Mary’s sinful nature could override the sinless nature of GOD. That’s impossible.

Your argument for Mary’s sinless nature is that it is a requirement in order for Jesus to be sinless. Mary’s parents were sinful and yet you claim that GOD pardoned Mary for lack of a better word. If GOD could do this with Mary he can certainly do it with Jesus. Saying Mary has to be sinless so Jesus could be sinless is placing constraints around GOD. It’s also saying that Jesus as GOD incarnate would be tainted with sin which again is impossible. GOD does not sin.

PEACE

 

[KJK80]

Your argument for Mary’s sinless nature

I don’t have a specific argument here, I was just getting clarification of what you meant…

I don’t claim to understand the in’s and out’s of the Immaculate Conception… Just trying to follow along here.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant!

 

[mangy_dog]

Roman Catholics… Why don’t you believe ALL (including Mary) have sinned? God said it… shouldn’t that be final?

Rom 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

The Immaculate, Perpetual Virgin, Mother of God was, is and remains sinless - was Assumed into heaven and is the Woman Clothed with the sun, with a crown of twelve stars and her feet on the moon.
Her sinlessness since Her Immaculate Conception is in light of Christ’s virtues.
Our human condition carrys in the fleshly condition, the original sin. In order for Christ to be without this condition, Mary was pre-eminently saved and excluded from the original sin that every human is born into.

It doesn’t matter what you and others like you think. The Theotokos was, is and remains - Body, Soul and Spirit, Immaculate, sinless.

The kicker is that despite you and others like you - the 5th Marian dogma will (I have faith that it will) be proclaimed by the Pope in the not so distant future.

How’s about them apples?!

Slice it, dice it, analyze it, philosophize it all you want…the point is moot.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[NDfan]

I agree that He cannot be tainted, but it is because He is divine, and not because He was not seeded by man. He still took flesh of Mary’s flesh, and if she was not immaculately conceived, then He took flesh tainted by original sin.

You are contradicting yourself here. You first say Jesus was sinless because he was divine. I agree 100%. He was divine why? Because he was GOD incarnate. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. But then you say that even though he was divine he could have been tainted with sin because of sinful flesh. I’m saying that’s impossible because sin never wins over GOD. Sin dies in the face of GOD. Therefore the sinful nature of Mary would not survive in Jesus because he was divine.

Here’s another thought. You claim that GOD pardoned Mary from sin even though her parents were sinful. Yet you then claim that Jesus would be sinful if GOD had used Mary’s sinful flesh. Why couldn’t GOD pardon Jesus the same way he pardoned Mary? If he could do it for Mary then surely he could do it for Jesus. Why does GOD need Mary to be sinless when both her parents were sinful? If GOD can make a person sinless from 2 sinful natures then why can’t he make a person sinless with only one sinful person involved?

Answer: He did when Mary conceived through the Holy Spirit. This made Jesus divine and sinless. Mary had nothing to do with it.

He would be if he took tainted flesh to himself.

Answered above.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

I don’t have a specific argument here, I was just getting clarification of what you meant…

I don’t claim to understand the in’s and out’s of the Immaculate Conception… Just trying to follow along here.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant!

It’s all good natured discussion KJ. We all could be interpreting it wrong in the end. I try to make sense of it as well and when you say Mary can be prevented from sin, but Jesus can’t unless Mary was then that doesn’t make sense.

PEACE