All have sinned.. including Mary.

[daeve]

Nothing in the Bible about that.

There’s a lot I haven’t read on this thread yet, but, and please don’t take this to be rude, SO WHAT?

Do you think He didn’t know her and everyone else before they were born? Do you think God couldn’t make just one person, the mother of His own son, special if that’s what He wanted? Are you putting limits on God’s ability to do anything at all?

Actually, I probably won’t read any more. This isn’t something you want to believe, and we don’t want to believe that Our Lady committed sins, had other children or any other of that stuff.

We don’t worship the Blessed Virgin, as you think we do, but we’ll continue to pray to her. I ask her, as the best role model of mothers and human beings, to guide me to a better understanding of God. Who else lived a live wholly satisfying to God? We can all take a cue from her in obedience and humilty. Even when we pray to the Blessed Virgin we are doing it to honor and worship God alone.

This isn’t something we’ll ever be able to explain to someone who doesn’t want to understand it.

 

[Lampo]

Well the Eucharist is a different discussion but let me say that once you understand the Jewish culture of the seder meal and afikomen part of the meal you will see why Jesus was speaking symbolically. Read Christ in the Passover and that will help you. If you’d like to discuss further create a thread and I will explain more.

I have a challenge/proposition for you. If you can show me one Early Church Father that argued that the Eucharist is merely symbolic I will convert to whatever Protestant faith tradition you choose. If I can provide **20 **Early Church Fathers that believed in the Real Presence, will you enroll in RCIA this week and come into full communion with the Catholic Church next Easter?

 

[MrS]

Well the Eucharist is a different discussion but let me say that once you understand the Jewish culture of the seder meal and afikomen part of the meal you will see why Jesus was speaking symbolically. Read Christ in the Passover and that will help you. If you’d like to discuss further create a thread and I will explain more.

201​

Until the Reformation, there was only one understanding of “This IS my Body”… then within one generation, the reforms offered 200 different translations in attempts to reject the Truth. Since they did not have the authority to ordain and confect, the goal became one of trying to do what you are doing… confuse and/or misrepresent.

What part of IS do you not want to accept?

 

[NDfan]

I guess all thse Jews who abandoned him in John 6 lacked this insight also.

Bob John 6 has nothing to do with the Eucharist but that is a different discussion. With regard to the interpretations of scripture made by Rome please read all the Catechisms that plainly state interpretations of scripture including a very detailed interpretation of Revelations. I’m actually surprised you have to ask this question.

 

[MrS]

Estes that it so untrue. The RCC has issued complete interpretations for the entire Bible. That is the purpose of the teaching Magisterium. Where do you get 3 verses from??

not true at all… The Catholic Church approves or disapproves translations, and continually studies and discusses Scripture. But they have not issued a complete interpretations of all 73 books.

Matter of fact, many verses have many acceptable “interpretations.”…but not will deny or refute another.

 

[NDfan]

It is HIS GRACE which is always and forever… from which each of us is blessed.

It could not be translated …“to the praise of his full of grace, with which he has made us all full of grace…”

He blesses us with/from that grace.

Mary, however, is addressed as THAT Grace, not someone blessed from it.

Sorry but you are incorrect. The same word used to described Stephen in Acts is the same word used to describe Jesus in John. A literal interpretation of Kecharitomene is not full of grace. It is one that has been bestowed grace. That’s why the proper english rendering is highly favoured.

 

[MrS]

Sorry but you are incorrect. The same word used to described Stephen in Acts is the same word used to describe Jesus in John. A literal interpretation of Kecharitomene is not full of grace. It is one that has been bestowed grace. That’s why the proper english rendering is highly favoured.

Only if you are protestant, or trying to appease their bias.

The Church and Magisterium had the only Divine Authority to interpret, and they disagree with you and yourn. Sorry:shrug:

The angel does not address her as “Hail, Mary, you are A highly favored one…”

He says " Hail, full of grace…"

 

[daeve]

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.

I’m still here after all.

I’ll trust the Roman Catholic Church, it’s centuries of tradition, it’s scholars and theologians a lot more than my own interpretation, or Reverend Bob’s. I like having someone in authority who can settle things like this.

 

[estesbob]

Bob John 6 has nothing to do with the Eucharist but that is a different discussion. With regard to the interpretations of scripture made by Rome please read all the Catechisms that plainly state interpretations of scripture including a very detailed interpretation of Revelations. I’m actually surprised you have to ask this question.

It doesnt??? How can you understand the Last supper without refering to John 6. John 6 is the declaration of the doctrine of the real presence. The Last supper is an affirmation of it.

 

[estesbob]

not true at all… The Catholic Church approves or disapproves translations, and continually studies and discusses Scripture. But they have not issued a complete interpretations of all 73 books.

Matter of fact, many verses have many acceptable “interpretations.”…but not will deny or refute another.

Correct

 

[daeve]

I suppose… If you believe your religion is completely without error. The Jews felt the same way.

Are you saying your religion has error? Yeah, we think so too. Sorry, I should try to speak for everyone. I think so too.

 

[NDfan]

I would say the Seder is nothing like the Eucharist.

It doesn’t matter what you say. The seder is completely about the Eucharist. Jesus and the Apostles were eating the seder meal before he died. The cup Jesus gave them to drink from after the supper was the third cup in the seder meal which is the cup of redemption. It’s red wine mixed with warm water to symbolize the blood of the lambs that were sacrificed prior to the Exodus. The bread they ate was the bread that symbolized the body of those same lambs. This is called the afikomen and is done because after the destruction of the Temple Jews no longer had a place to sacrifice their passover lambs.

That is also why the seder plate has the shank bone of the lamb which is called the Zeroah instead of real Lamb’s meat. The Zeroah is a symbol of the Lamb. Christ foretold of the destruction of the Temple and was foreshadowing the afikomen meal. But instead of eating the bread and wine to symbolize the Lambs from the Exodus, Christ said the bread was now his body, and the 3rd cup of redemption was now the new covenant in his blood and not the blood of the Exodus Lambs. Christ was now the final sacrificial Lamb as the final payment for all sin. HIS body and blood were now represented by the unleavened bread and red wine mixed with warm water.

This realization is bringing Jews to the Faith as they are realizing they have no method of atoning for sin since the Temple is gone.

PEACE

 

[MrS]

It doesn’t matter what you say. The seder is completely about the Eucharist. Jesus and the Apostles were eating the seder meal before he died. The cup Jesus gave them to drink from after the supper was the third cup in the seder meal which is the cup of redemption. It’s red wine mixed with warm water to symbolize the blood of the lambs that were sacrificed prior to the Exodus. The bread they ate was the bread that symbolized the body of those same lambs. This is called the afikomen and is done because after the destruction of the Temple Jews no longer had a place to sacrifice their passover lambs.

That is also why the seder plate has the shank bone of the lamb which is called the Zeroah instead of real Lamb’s meat. The Zeroah is a symbol of the Lamb. Christ foretold of the destruction of the Temple and was foreshadowing the afikomen meal. But instead of eating the bread and wine to symbolize the Lambs from the Exodus, Christ said the bread was now his body, and the 3rd cup of redemption was now the new covenant in his blood and not the blood of the Exodus Lambs. Christ was now the final sacrificial Lamb as the final payment for all sin. HIS body and blood were now represented by the unleavened bread and red wine mixed with warm water.

This realization is bringing Jews to the Faith as they are realizing they have no method of atoning for sin since the Temple is gone.

PEACE

“…This is the new covenant in my wine…” NOPE

 

[Lampo]

It doesn’t matter what you say. The seder is completely about the Eucharist. Jesus and the Apostles were eating the seder meal before he died. The cup Jesus gave them to drink from after the supper was the third cup in the seder meal which is the cup of redemption. It’s red wine mixed with warm water to symbolize the blood of the lambs that were sacrificed prior to the Exodus. The bread they ate was the bread that symbolized the body of those same lambs. This is called the afikomen and is done because after the destruction of the Temple Jews no longer had a place to sacrifice their passover lambs.

That is also why the seder plate has the shank bone of the lamb which is called the Zeroah instead of real Lamb’s meat. The Zeroah is a symbol of the Lamb. Christ foretold of the destruction of the Temple and was foreshadowing the afikomen meal. But instead of eating the bread and wine to symbolize the Lambs from the Exodus, Christ said the bread was now his body, and the 3rd cup of redemption was now the new covenant in his blood and not the blood of the Exodus Lambs. Christ was now the final sacrificial Lamb as the final payment for all sin. HIS body and blood were now represented by the unleavened bread and red wine mixed with warm water.

This realization is bringing Jews to the Faith as they are realizing they have no method of atoning for sin since the Temple is gone.

PEACE

Do *any *Early Church Fathers agree with you that the Eucharist is merely symbolic?

 

[estesbob]

It doesn’t matter what you say. The seder is completely about the Eucharist. Jesus and the Apostles were eating the seder meal before he died. The cup Jesus gave them to drink from after the supper was the third cup in the seder meal which is the cup of redemption. It’s red wine mixed with warm water to symbolize the blood of the lambs that were sacrificed prior to the Exodus. The bread they ate was the bread that symbolized the body of those same lambs. This is called the afikomen and is done because after the destruction of the Temple Jews no longer had a place to sacrifice their passover lambs.

That is also why the seder plate has the shank bone of the lamb which is called the Zeroah instead of real Lamb’s meat. The Zeroah is a symbol of the Lamb. Christ foretold of the destruction of the Temple and was foreshadowing the afikomen meal. But instead of eating the bread and wine to symbolize the Lambs from the Exodus, Christ said the bread was now his body, and the 3rd cup of redemption was now the new covenant in his blood and not the blood of the Exodus Lambs. Christ was now the final sacrificial Lamb as the final payment for all sin. HIS body and blood were now represented by the unleavened bread and red wine mixed with warm water.

This realization is bringing Jews to the Faith as they are realizing they have no method of atoning for sin since the Temple is gone.

PEACE

So the ECF had no knowledge whatsoever of the seder meal , nor did any of the church leaders for the next 2,000 years?

This is taking the usual path:

1. We have to accept your undrestanding of a seder meal.
2. we have to agree to ignore any part of Scripture that disagrees with you thesis AND
3. We have to accept you personal interpretation of those scripture verses you claim are relevant

 

[daeve]

Yet another definition of a word that means something different to Protestants and Catholics.

yes.

yes, how can they avoind sin when they do not understand that they should?

yes. Jacob and Esau fought even in the womb.

Toddlers are notorious for not obeying and being difficult… ever heard of the terrible twos?

yes they ALL sinned. They all have done things that are against God. That they do not understand does not mean that God somehow changes and likes their sin… it does mean that God is merciful and does not condemn them to hell for it. It does not cease to be sin just because God is merciful.

One cannot sin if one doesn’t understand the action IS a sin. Behaving like a two year old is not a sin when you are a two year old.

 

[HiggDo]

Originally Posted by Lampo

This is according to your (already admitted by you) fallible interpretation of Scripture, correct?

For you to claim it is incorrect would mean you have the correct infallible interpretation. Do you have that and where i can find it?

Or it could mean Lampo has an opposing fallible interpretation. hehe

Historically speaking, the prevailing opinion has always been the one that wielded the most power and authority and could be further usurped in time by an interpretation from another stronger power…

For me, Its just amazing to see the one true Catholic Church, established by Christ, living in Christ as Christ’s Bride/ Christ’s Body, survive 2,000 years of these onslaughts of back and forth challenges of interpretation and even downright persecution.

Nowhere else in history has one earthly (in part) entity been under such constant attack and yet not only persevered but experienced growth in spite of the attacks.

Praise be to God for His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!

 

[daeve]

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 . . .

I don’t want to be quite as vehement as my compadre above, but what he’s saying is quite true. You can’t have it both ways.

If an infant has the capacity to sin, he must also have the capacity to choose. If he doesn’t have the capacity to choose, he can’t sin. This would apply to sin OR Baptism

If you believe the Bible is 100% fact, why don’t you believe “This is My Body” to be 100% fact.

The word “all” isn’t nearly as convincing to me as “This is My Body”.

 

[NDfan]

201​

Until the Reformation, there was only one understanding of “This IS my Body”… then within one generation, the reforms offered 200 different translations in attempts to reject the Truth. Since they did not have the authority to ordain and confect, the goal became one of trying to do what you are doing… confuse and/or misrepresent.

What part of IS do you not want to accept?

MrS I’m not confusing anything. Just because Jesus said this IS my body doesn’t mean literal body. Again if you understand the seder meal it makes more sense. Try understanding what the 3rd cup of redemption means. This was the same cup Jesus gave to the disciples after the seder meal was complete. Only the wine mixed with warm water SYMBOLIZED the blood of the Exodus Lambs. Jesus was now telling us it was HIS blood. HE doesn’t say I am turning this into my blood. He also doesn’t say this is a cup of my blood. He wanted the Apostles who were Jewish and understood what the 3rd cup meant to now see that it was Jesus blood that provided our redemption.

The problem is once the Gospel started to reach outside of Jerusalem non-Jewish church leaders who did not understand this rich Jewish tradition tried to apply their greek backgrounds in philosophy to the meaning of this IS my body.

Aso with respect to your above statement on authority, Chrysostom himself stated that the Priest had nothing to do with any change the Eucharist underwent. He stated it was the work of Jesus in response to Faith.

 

[elvisman]

The RCC does the same thing. They publish what they think scripture is saying. I believe I’m being guided by the Holy Spirit just as you do.

But you automatically think because an ECF supports your claim you are 100% right. The ECFs are stating what they think just like everyone else but somehow you want to raise them above everyone as if they are somehow more authoritative. In 2000 years if the earth still exists, some will point back to Pope Benedict and say “even Pope Benedict made this claim”.

You’re making an assumption the things they say are what they were taught. If you read anything from Polycarp or Ignatius, they never say “this is what the Apostle John taught me”. The closest thing we have is from I believe Irenaeus or Clement that cites an Apostolic directive. That directive was to place leaders in the churches that were consistent with Apostolic teachings. Also if you ever take time to read all writings from the ECFs from say 100AD to 200AD at the latest you will notice an extreme change in posture on many issues. Show me something from Ignatius, Polycarp or Clement that confirms anything about Mary that states they were taught this by the Apostles.

But Luke never writes that comparison, so to imply that his intention was the same as David’s reaction is to speak where the Bible is silent. You are making a conclusion that may not exist. What Luke does tell us and so does Matthew is that Jesus was born of a virgin to fulfill the prophecy. We never hear that it was a sinless virgin as fulfilled prophecy.

And all these deductions and comparisons you are making are very nice. But unfortunately they don’t prove that Mary was sinless. The sinless nature of Mary is not what is stressed. It’s the fact that Jesus was born of a Virgin. The Ark had to be lined with Gold to carry the ten commandments and the scrolls containing the law that GOD commanded Moses to write. Mary’s womb had to have a similar purity in order to carry Jesus. And it was. She was a virgin who was undefiled by any man. We don’t compare the Ark to Mary’s body. We compare the Ark to Mary’s womb.

PEACE

The point I was making about the ECF’s is that you have to take a longer and more dangerous leap to make your point as a Protestant on many issues that separate us. Not to mention some of the fancy footwork you have to do with scripture. This is true for Church Authority, the Eucharist, the sacrament of confession, and so on.

---

My point is not to make the ECF’s infallible because many of them weren’t speaking infallibly. I am also pointing out the fact that the Church taught this for centuries before the Protestant Revolution.

---

One big mistake Protestants make when alluding to the historicity of Catholic dogmas is when the dogma is pronounced. They assume that this is a new belief. On the contrary, a Dogma or doctrine is something that has already been believed and taught but is pronounced when it is brought into question.

---

I guess if you don’t accept the Authority that Jesus gave to his Church (Matt. 18:15-19, Matt. 28:18-20, John 16:13-15), you will have a hard time with Marian Doctrines, the Eucharist, Confession and the rest.

---

Remember that it was the Catholic Church that gave the world the New Testament.

---

I must say that I’m glad we can disagree without hurling uncharitable insults.