Could Mary have sinned?

[justasking4]

savedsinner;3159405]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If what you [say] is true then can you give me a couple of examples from your Sacred Traditions what the apostles taught not found in the Scriptures?

The Trinity.

The Trinity is derived from the scriptures and has verse-passage support. Its a doctrine grounded in the scriptures.

The canon of scripture.

The apostles themselves never spoke of what the NT canon would be.

 

[guanophore]

If what you is true then can you give me a couple of examples from your Sacred Traditions what the apostles taught not found in the Scriptures?

Don’t fall for this, savedsinner. ja4 is not interested in learning about Sacred Tradition. He is asking this question to set you up so that he can pursuade you to challenge the Teaching Authority of the Church, and expose them for teaching false doctrine.

ja4 has already made up his that what we call Sacred Tradition is nothing more than the “speculations of men”. He is not asking this question to get information, he is asking as a ruse to try to convince Catholics that it does not exist.

I have seen this claim many times about Sacred Tradition and those things not recorded in the scriptures. The problem is that if its not in the scriptures, its not inspired-inerrant. They do not carry apostolic authority. Most of these if not all of them are not grounded in the scriptures.

ja4 believes that the Catholic Church has strayed from Biblical Truth.

And well they should question. (the Magesterium) The scriptures warn of false teachers in the church who will decieve many. That is why you should hold your church accountable to what the scriptures teach. ** What you must do **is be on guard against false teachers in your own church.

The scriptures do warn of false teachers in the church itself. There was no promise given by Christ that this would not happen.
Thats the issue. There are no biblical roots for these marian doctrines. Why do you believe such a thing if the scriptures never teach such a thing?

(talking about Sacred Tradition) might get someone who reads these posts to rethink their position.

"guanophore:

But you have already made it clear that you consider these “speculations of men” and false teachng that has crept into the Church, so why keep bringing it up?

i want to help others see it to.

ja4 believes all the Catholic Traditions he cannot find in his bible are “false gospel”.

If what you say is true, then this would be a false gospel since Paul was totally unaware of the many doctrines in the catholic church.

The scriptures warn that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. How does a catholic go about applying this principle in their church today?

(scripture)

Its all we have. Anything else is mere specualtions and its not wise to build doctrines on speculations. You need facts to show and those facts don’t exist. What you must do is be on guard against false teachers in your own church.

you don’t have the truth but speculations.

It could just as easily be shown in some respects how quickly the church was allowing unbilical teachings into the church at a very early stage.

If the catholic church was not corrupt, then why was desired in the catholic church itself for a reformation around the 15th century?

Do you consider the inquisitions that was supported by various popes for centuries a sign of corruption?

How about some of the popes, the vicars of Christ who were evil. Is this a sign of corruption?

(Magesterium)

Confront them and expose them.

How can the catholic church claim that “sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known…” claim this when the apostles never taught so many of the doctrines of the church?

These are important questions that need to be addressed for the mere fact such a great claim is being made that these Traditions are to be accepted and venerated in the same way the inspired-inerrant Word of God.

guanophore:

Is your purpose in being here on CAF to get Catholics to question their leadership?

justasking4:

And well they should question. The scriptures warn of false teachers in the church who will decieve many. That is why you should hold your church accountable to what the scriptures teach. When you study the marian doctrines in light of the scriptures you will find that the support is not there. What you must do is be on guard against false teachers in your own church. The scriptures do warn of false teachers in the church itself. There was no promise given by Christ that this would not happen. There are no biblical roots for these marian doctrines.

 

[savedsinner]

Don’t fall for this, savedsinner. ja4 is not interested in learning about Sacred Tradition. He is asking this question to set you up so that he can pursuade you to challenge the Teaching Authority of the Church, and expose them for teaching false doctrine.

You are probably right.

It seems that some Christians ignores Church history, and just assume that the Trinity is known from scripture aside from Sacred Tradition.

They don’t recognize or accept that they are relying of Sacred Tradition for this.

They ignore the council of Nicea and how it came to its decision.

Since the Arians used scripture alone to deny the divinity of Christ, what was the determining factor at the Council of Nicea?

Why was the Churches interpretation of scripture which said that Jesus was divine the correct one, and the Arians incorrect?

Was the decision made by scripture alone?

Before some gives just a glib answer, I suggest they actually study the council in a little depth.

 

[justasking4]

You are probably right.

It seems that some Christians ignores Church history, and just assume that the Trinity is known from scripture aside from Sacred Tradition.

They don’t recognize or accept that they are relying of Sacred Tradition for this.

They ignore the council of Nicea and how it came to its decision.

Since the Arians used scripture alone to deny the divinity of Christ, what was the determining factor at the Council of Nicea?

Why was the Churches interpretation of scripture which said that Jesus was divine the correct one, and the Arians incorrect?

Was the decision made by scripture alone?

Before some gives just a glib answer, I suggest they actually study the council in a little depth.

Since it appears you know catholic teachings well what is a defintion of Sacred Tradition?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3159818]

Quote: guanophore
Originally Posted by justasking4
you don’t have the truth but speculations.

while this is the full quote that i wrote:
You can claim to be led all you want but if its not in the scriptures nor are there any historical facts you don’t have the truth but speculations.

Thats why you slander. You take what i’m saying out of context.

 

[guanophore]

Since it appears you know catholic teachings well what is a defintion of Sacred Tradition?

Trust me, savedsinner. ja4 has been informed about the divine deposit of faith, and the two strands of revelation. He even has a Catechism (or says he does) and has quoted from it.

We should only go by what is written. No more, no less.

All we have of what Jesus and the apostles taught is to be found only in the scriptures. The scriptures are sufficent for all that we need to live our lives in Christ.

"justasking4:

I know catholics accept these things as true. However due to the nature of these sacred traditons and the claims made in regard to them, they really don’t support what the apostles taught. Your church goes far beyond what the apostles taught with so many of its doctrines.

In sense we must pick and choose what we will believe to be the truth. I’m would think even you have certain qualms about some issues in your church.

If you can’t find clear support for a doctrine (in scripture), then what you are left with is speculation. Speculation is not a foundation in which to build a doctrine on. Its like building on sand. It is only the scriptures that are infallible and inerrant. Not the church. The church does not make the Bible infallible or inerrant. ** The church has always had the scriptures but had chosen to introduce the doctrines of men instead.**

"justasking:

Huh? Your church certainly does try to interpret the scriptures.Saying it uses the “deposit of faith” (whatever that is?) only moves your interpretation in another direction. In fact it creates more problems for you in that these other non-biblical understandings don’t jive with the scriptures.

Truth is never determined by authority but by the facts. If you don’t have the facts to back up a claim, you really can’t say you have the truth.

However, the only record we have are the scriptures. We don’t have any other trusted sources that tell us other things.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3159818]Don’t fall for this, savedsinner. ja4 is not interested in learning about Sacred Tradition. He is asking this question to set you up so that he can pursuade you to challenge the Teaching Authority of the Church, and expose them for teaching false doctrine.

ja4 has already made up his that what we call Sacred Tradition is nothing more than the “speculations of men”. He is not asking this question to get information, he is asking as a ruse to try to convince Catholics that it does not exist.

I’m trying to understand what Sacred Tradition is. What is the definition of it?

ja4 believes that the Catholic Church has strayed from Biblical Truth.

What wrong with this? I have seen many posts on these forums that say that protestantism has strayed from the truth. I expect that and am not offended by it. It seems that you are though, and don’t like being shown some of the dark aspects of the catholic church.

ja4 believes all the Catholic Traditions he cannot find in his bible are “false gospel”.

I have written a couple thousand posts and don’t remember saying this specifically. I don’t even remember even talking about the gospel yet. It is a topic i do want to address though.

(scripture)

(Magesterium)

 

[guanophore]

while this is the full quote that i wrote:
You can claim to be led all you want but if its not in the scriptures nor are there any historical facts you don’t have the truth but speculations.

Thats why you slander. You take what i’m saying out of context.

It is right in context, ja4. We are speaking about Sacred tradition, and the Marian Doctrines. That quote was taken from another thread on Marian Doctirnes, where you made it clear that you believe what Catholics call “Sacred Tradition” is nothing but the 'speculatons of men". In saying this, you are calling Jesus a weakling, or a liar. You are saying that He was not able or lied when he said He would lead the Apostles into all truth. You call the HS a liar and a weakling, because you are saying that the HS could not, or did not remain with them, and keep them to the end of the age. Who is doing the slander here?

You reject the historical facts kept by the Church Jesus founded, and you restrict yourself to the book that was created by them out of that same Sacred Tradition which you malign. You have a right to reject the teaching, of course. however, what is your goal in coming to a Catholic forum to malign the Teaching of the Church? If you believe these matters to be speculations, why spend any more time on it?

 

[guanophore]

I’m trying to understand what Sacred Tradition is. What is the definition of it?

Don’t be disingenuous, ja4. You are not trying to understand Sacred Tradition. You have already made up your mind that anything you cannot find in your Bible is the 'speculation of men". You have also made it clear that you believe all the doctrines about Mary are Catholics “adding to scripture” which you consider to be the only reliable source of revelation. You have been given definitions multiple times with multiple sources. You have rejected them all. Be honest! This line of questioning is a method that you use to try to show Catholics that their beliefs are in error, and that their teachers have led them astray into false doctrines. You want Catholics to examine their Bibles, to see that “these doctrines are not found in Scripture” so that they will turn away from them.

Here are some of your quotes, to refresh your memory:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3133316&postcount=195

 

[guanophore]

What wrong with this? I have seen many posts on these forums that say that protestantism has strayed from the truth. I expect that and am not offended by it. It seems that you are though, and don’t like being shown some of the dark aspects of the catholic church.

It does not offend me, because I know that the Catholic faith is not based on the NT, but on the Teaching of Jesus. The NT did not even exist when the Church was born, so I do not have to be concerned that my faith is based on something that did not yet exist.

I am offended, though, about you constant attacks and calumny against the Bride of Christ.

"…as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Eph 5:25-28

In calling the Church “dark” you are spurning the sacrifice of Christ, who gave His life to maker her holy, without spot or wrinkle, without blemish.

I know you do this because you dont’ “see” the Church - all you can “see” are fallible people and doctrines that you don’t understand and can’t accept. However, along with your ignorance there is a tone of hostility that I find offensive.

I pray for you daily, ja4, and it was my posts in reply to yours that got me praying daily for the members of the forum. May God enlighten the eyes of your heart, so that you will stop persecuting Him.

 

[guanophore]

I have written a couple thousand posts and don’t remember saying this specifically. I don’t even remember even talking about the gospel yet. It is a topic i do want to address though.

I can understand why you would not want to address this, ja4. I think the forum rules are pretty clear that members are not to level the type of calumny against Catholicism by calling her the ‘whore of Babylon’ or even “dark aspects” (antichrist?). You have made reference repeatedly to the Magesterium teaching falsely.

If what you say is true, **then this would be a false gospel **since Paul was totally unaware of the many doctrines in the catholic church. See Galatians 1:8-9. He never taught anything about the marian doctrines for example. That was never a requirement of the gospel he taught.

The scriptures warn that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. How does a catholic go about applying this principle in their church today?

And for context, I will clarify that this comment was made in response to Marian doctrine, purgatory,and indulgences.

 

[NotWorthy]

And faith is based on what? You can believe in what is true or believe falsely.

That’s why it’s called faith. It’s belief in the unseen or unknown.

I’ll stake my faith on Jesus and the Church (I believe) that He left us, thank you!!!

What seems to me to be a profound weakness of Catholic theology is the idea of an oversensitive and easily broken state of grace. The blood of Christ covers sin (justification) before it is taken away (sanctification), using Protestant terminology for what Catholics use the term justification to cover both justification and sanctification. When initially/forensically justified, one no longer has sin in the eyes of God from a legal viewpoint, although He knows better than you do what you are doing, thinking and wanting. From what I gather, most Catholics most of the time are in a state of mortal sin. I did a poll on CAF a while ago in which most of the CAF Catholics stated they commit mortal sins much more than they can possibly go to Confession. God declaring your sins forgiven, once and for all, is much cleaner and He then works all the time, not just when you are in a state of grace that is conditioned on you. Instead it is conditioned on Him.

I prefer to think it is conditioned on our participation in His Covenant (or OUR Covenant). Just look at Israel in the OT. The book of Judges through Chronicles tells of a vicious cycle of Israel being “in Covenant” with God and then turning away from him and falling “out of Covenant”. To me, this pre-figures the individual Christian’s (to varying degrees, of course, depending on the individual) life.

The biggest fallacy, in my view, of Protestant Theology (I know, it’s like herding cats trying to explain “Protestant Theology”) is that it takes all the things Christ established in the NT and sweeps it under the carpet.

• Jesus gives men the power and authority to forgive sins? Ignored
• Jesus establishes a Church with authority to bind and loose and to resolve disputes? Ignored
• Jesus establishes Baptism as necessary for Salvation? Ignored, albeit only in certain faiths, those that believe only in “believers baptism”.
• Jesus establishes a priesthood to “offer up” (poien) His Sacrfice as a Memorial (anamnesis) to Him? Ignored among numerous, but not all, faiths.

It’s like many Protestants faiths did everything in their power to reduce Jesus’ message to “Believe and be saved” and ignored all the other teachings of Christ. And the vast majority of them did this by replacing Ecclestiacal Authority with Scripture Only Theology.

 

[NotWorthy]

Here is a definition by a greek scholar–χαριτόω charitóō; contracted charitó̄, fut. charitó̄sō, from cháris (5485), grace. To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitóō is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace. (See huiothesía [5206], adoption, occurring in Eph. 1:5)

Let’s see. If God hates Sin (and Evil) and Mary is highly favored, then Mary would be without sin or even the Stain of Sin, IMO.

Take your quote from Ephesians. This letter is to newly baptized Christians, who are graced (that’s redundant, I know). What does Baptism do for you? It wipes away all your sins right? So, if Mary has been favored since her creation…

 

[Truthstalker]

That’s why it’s called faith. It’s belief in the unseen or unknown.

I’ll stake my faith on Jesus and the Church (I believe) that He left us, thank you!!!

Faith has a rational basis. Faith is the assurance of things not seen, the conviction of things hoped for (I may be misquoting Hebrews). But that assurance and conviction are based on facts. Christianity is based on facts, not things without grounding, on historically verifiable phenomena, and continues on the basis of God’s continued presences in His Church. I think we can agree on that.

Jesus is infinitely solid, real, trustworthy, present, right, and faithful - so much more so than anything created that it is a mistake to have one foot on Him and one foot on anything else, because anything else is infinitely weaker by comparison. So you cannot believe Him and the Church equally. You cannot put your trust in God and a created thing equally - no matter how highly exalted that thing is.

I prefer to think it is conditioned on our participation in His Covenant (or OUR Covenant). Just look at Israel in the OT. The book of Judges through Chronicles tells of a vicious cycle of Israel being “in Covenant” with God and then turning away from him and falling “out of Covenant”. To me, this pre-figures the individual Christian’s (to varying degrees, of course, depending on the individual) life.

Modern Catholicism seems to push aside predestination as a doctine in favor of such an emphasis on human effort that the label Semi-Pelagian is tempting to attribute to it. I hear a priest in a homily say that our salvation is up to us. Not God. No mention of election, calling, predestination, or anything except a human-powered salvation. That was a homily that would have been totally foreign to Augustine or Aquinas. It is totally foreign to Catholicism.

In the new and everlasting covenant Christ fixed the problems with the old covenant. Now believers have the Holy Spirit within them, rather than merely on a corporate level. He chose us, we did not choose Him. He powers our salvation; His is the act of redemption.

I think the idea of old Israel prefiguring the modern Christian is your own idea. I doubt it comes from official Catholic doctrine or teaching, like much of what is passed around as Catholic doctrine today but is an infiltration of semi-Pelagianism. God saves.

The biggest fallacy, in my view, of Protestant Theology (I know, it’s like herding cats trying to explain “Protestant Theology”) is that it takes all the things Christ established in the NT and sweeps it under the carpet.

• Jesus gives men the power and authority to forgive sins? Ignored
• Jesus establishes a Church with authority to bind and loose and to resolve disputes? Ignored
• Jesus establishes Baptism as necessary for Salvation? Ignored, albeit only in certain faiths, those that believe only in “believers baptism”.
• Jesus establishes a priesthood to “offer up” (poien) His Sacrfice as a Memorial (anamnesis) to Him? Ignored among numerous, but not all, faiths.

It’s like many Protestants faiths did everything in their power to reduce Jesus’ message to “Believe and be saved” and ignored all the other teachings of Christ. And the vast majority of them did this by replacing Ecclestiacal Authority with Scripture Only Theology.

Nice broad sweeping brush. Have you taken the time to learn what ANY Protestants do with these doctrines, or do you just dismiss it out of hand, not knowing or caring what Protestants really believe on these things? Cite sources and links for your assertions.

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3161515]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Here is a definition by a greek scholar–χαριτόω charitóō; contracted charitó̄, fut. charitó̄sō, from cháris (5485), grace. To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitóō is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace. (See huiothesía [5206], adoption, occurring in Eph. 1:5)
NotWorthy
Let’s see. If God hates Sin (and Evil) and Mary is highly favored, then Mary would be without sin or even the Stain of Sin, IMO.

How do you get this out of the definition?

Take your quote from Ephesians. This letter is to newly baptized Christians, who are graced (that’s redundant, I know). What does Baptism do for you? It wipes away all your sins right? So, if Mary has been favored since her creation…

You have not proven in the least that Mary was “favored since her creation”. You are not getting this from the definition of what favored means. You are reading into it.

 

[savedsinner]

Since it appears you know catholic teachings well what is a defintion of Sacred Tradition?

TRADITION

Literally a “handing on,” referring to the passing down of God’s revealed word. As such it has two closely related but distinct meanings. Tradition first means all of divine revelation, from the dawn of human history to the end of the apostolic age, as passed on from one generation of believers to the next, and as preserved under divine guidance by the Church established by Christ. Sacred Tradition more technically also means, within this transmitted revelation, that part of God’s revealed word which is not contained in Sacred Scripture. Referring specifically to how Christian tradition was handed on, the Second Vatican Council says: “It was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received–whether from the lips of Christ, from His way of life and His works, or whether they had learned it by the prompting of the Holy Spirit” (Constitution on Divine Revelation, II, 7). (Etym. Latin traditio, a giving over, delivery, surrender; a handing down: from tradere, to give up.)

 

[justasking4]

TRADITION

Literally a “handing on,” referring to the passing down of God’s revealed word. As such it has two closely related but distinct meanings. Tradition first means all of divine revelation, from the dawn of human history to the end of the apostolic age, as passed on from one generation of believers to the next, and as preserved under divine guidance by the Church established by Christ. Sacred Tradition more technically also means, within this transmitted revelation, that part of God’s revealed word which is not contained in Sacred Scripture. Referring specifically to how Christian tradition was handed on, the Second Vatican Council says: “It was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received–whether from the lips of Christ, from His way of life and His works, or whether they had learned it by the prompting of the Holy Spirit” (Constitution on Divine Revelation, II, 7). (Etym. Latin traditio, a giving over, delivery, surrender; a handing down: from tradere, to give up.)

Does this mean all Sacred Tradition must be in some form from the apostles?

 

[savedsinner]

Does this mean all Sacred Tradition must be in some form from the apostles?

If you are really interested in learning more about Sacred Tradition, here are a few links -

Tradition and Living Magisterium - Catholic encyclopedia

THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION - Catechism

What is Sacred Tradition? by Mark Shea

THE TWO CANONS: SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION by James Akin

INSPIRATION, TRADITION, AND SCRIPTURE by James Akin

Apostolic Tradition - Catholic answers library

Scripture and Tradition - Catholic answers library

 

[justasking4]

If you are really interested in learning more about Sacred Tradition, here are a few links -

Tradition and Living Magisterium - Catholic encyclopedia

THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION - Catechism

What is Sacred Tradition? by Mark Shea

THE TWO CANONS: SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION by James Akin

INSPIRATION, TRADITION, AND SCRIPTURE by James Akin

Apostolic Tradition - Catholic answers library

Scripture and Tradition - Catholic answers library

I read Shea’ article and it still raises so many questions. No wonder catholics have so much difficulty answering questions about it. For example Shea writes:This other stuff is unwritten Sacred Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks of the written Tradition together in the right order and position) and the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder).
Can you give me a couple of examples of unwritten Sacred Tradition?

 

[savedsinner]

I read Shea’ article and it still raises so many questions. No wonder catholics have so much difficulty answering questions about it. For example Shea writes:This other stuff is unwritten Sacred Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks of the written Tradition together in the right order and position) and the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder).
Can you give me a couple of examples of unwritten Sacred Tradition?

You mean something like that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and John wrote the Gospel of John?