did Mary have fallen human nature?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jacob_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mercygate said:
Oh oh. If he gets into Newman’s Development we’ll be waiting a long time. Maybe he’ll invite one of us to sponsor him in RCIA!
Click to expand...
His profile says “Catholic”. But from his posts I can see how you could make that mistake. 🙂
 
VociMike said:
No problem here.

So “all have sinned” is just a statement about original sin then? So you believe (against the teaching of the Church of which you are a member) that Mary had original sin. But do you also believe (against the teaching of the Church of which you are a member) that she sinned personally? They are two different teachings of the Church.

And you still haven’t demonstrated that any Church teaching regarding Mary was “invented” in the 5th century. All you have done is appeal to silence, which is no proof at all. But you seem to hold the lack of surviving (fallible) texts higher than you do the witness of the Church. There’s nothing stopping you from having such a view, but you cannot in all honesty hold such a view and still regard the canon of scripture, as pronounced by that same Church, as infallible. Nor can you hold any doctrine pronounced by the Church as infallible. It does no good to claim that the Church got everything right up until some date X, and then started adding heresies. You are left with beliefs built upon sand rather than stone.

And you still have not given a plausible explanation as to how a heretical doctrine could arise and be taken up by the entire Church without any opposition to the doctrine. You still have not given a plausible explanation as to why the dog did not bark.
Click to expand...
I have not said what I believe. I have made points for the sake of the discussion. I am having a crisis in faith actually and that’s why I am trying to understand. The more I research, the more I find that there is not way I will understand because the Church can simply say that it’s infallible. End of story. Doesn’t matter. No need for thought, discussion, or anything else.

I don’t have proof when this became tradition. You don’t have proof when it did either. Your proof is that the Church said so, which matters to Catholics but not to anyone else.

As for a plausable explanation, a heresy would come about if the Chruch leadership refused to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In fact, this is what the reformers accused the Chruch of doing. The reformers accused the Church of diverting away from true Catholicism.

So, I am coming to the conclusion that in order to be Catholic, I just need to come to the realization that I either accept it and try to believe it or be damned. In order to do this, I will need to stop researching and asking questions and just blindly follow. For me, this is a frustrating predicament.
 
VociMike said:
A clue might be the laws given by God to the Jews. Not exactly a simple religion.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t Jesus upset with the Jews for how they had interpreted the 10 commandments in such minutia that the big picture was lost? The Jews worried so much about the minutia of each law. I feel that as a Catholic I have to spend so much time making sure I’m following the law that there is little left over for actually feeling or contemplating the love of God.
 
allhers said:
Hopefully expecthebest is reading all the material we have provided them with.
Click to expand...
I am. I am. I appreciate all the comments and education. I am definately struggling. Before anyone gets upset with me, please realize that I am struggling.
 
VociMike said:
His profile says “Catholic”. But from his posts I can see how you could make that mistake. 🙂
Click to expand...
Guess I need to shut up and just blindly follow, right? What is a person to do when something does not make sense with the Faith? The only conclusion I can come to is blindly follow. Or VociMike will make sarchastic comments about you.😦
 
bilop;3652533]
Be careful with “all have sinned”, Jesus was fully human, and never sinned.
Click to expand...
God Bless
Click to expand...
Jesus was also fully God therefore not capable of sin. Mary was fully human and 0% God, therefore a sinner.
 

Here is some more for you to consider, the Holy Father just said this May 3rd
The Apostolic Tradition of the Church
Pope Benedict XVI​

Tradition is the river of new life that flows from the origins, from Christ down to us, and sweeps us into the history of God with humanity
At the General Audience in St. Peter’s Square on Wednesday, 3 May, the Holy Father continued to focus on the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. Citing Dei Verbum, the Pope emphasized that: “What was handed on by the Apostles comprises everything that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith”, and that in this way “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is”. The following is a translation of the Holy Father’s Catechesis, which was given in Italian.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16ChrstChrch6.HTM
 
expectthebest said:
Guess I need to shut up and just blindly follow, right? What is a person to do when something does not make sense with the Faith? The only conclusion I can come to is blindly follow. Or VociMike will make sarchastic comments about you.😦
Click to expand...
Blind following is stupid. Go the course and find the answers to your questions. They are THERE!
 
expectthebest said:
Guess I need to shut up and just blindly follow, right? What is a person to do when something does not make sense with the Faith? The only conclusion I can come to is blindly follow. Or VociMike will make sarchastic comments about you.😦
Click to expand...
No, you shouldn’t blindly follow, you should continue to study.

BUT, because of the assurances Jesus gave about the Church, we can be sure she never errs in these matters.

Therefore, when we disagree with established doctrine, it is invariably us that are wrong. It takes a lot of humility to accept this, but I’ve yet to find an objection I had that didn’t prove erroneous upon further study.

God Bless
 
By the way, does anyone have a link to Dei Verbum? That was one of the documents of Vatican II, I believe, I’ll check that out, but if anyone has it already could you post it? Thanks.
 
bilop said:
No, you shouldn’t blindly follow, you should continue to study.

BUT, because of the assurances Jesus gave about the Church, we can be sure she never errs in these matters.

Therefore, when we disagree with established doctrine, it is invariably us that are wrong. It takes a lot of humility to accept this, but I’ve yet to find an objection I had that didn’t prove erroneous upon further study.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Point well taken.

It’s still hard for me to see the logic in looking for the Truth in a point that already been infallibly decided though. The question is, why wouldn’t one just blindly follow the Chruch? It’s impossible for the Church to be wrong. See the contradiction I am trying to resolve?
Thanks.
 
expectthebest said:
Guess I need to shut up and just blindly follow, right? What is a person to do when something does not make sense with the Faith? The only conclusion I can come to is blindly follow. Or VociMike will make sarchastic comments about you.😦
Click to expand...
Now who’s upset? Another poster assumed you were a Protestant, and I agreed that it was an understandable mistake from your posts. What’s sarcastic about that?

Anyway, what’s this stuff about blindly following? Has anybody suggested that to you? I doubt it. But blindly half-following is no better. If you are going to question the Church at the most fundamental level (her ability to preserve and to teach without error the faith given to the apostles), then you have to apply that doubt to everything which the Church has handed down, and that includes the scriptures which you keep using to support your arguments. Well, if the Church is wrong, then those books in the bible aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Protestants refuse to acknowledge this, or rather, the ones who do acknowledge it become Catholics or Orthodox. But their refusal doesn’t change the fact that if you’re going to question the ability of the Church to preserve the faith without error, you can’t use the bible to do so. You have no possible way of knowing those books are scripture except on the testimony of the Church.

Question what you want, but be consistent.
 
expectthebest said:
Point well taken.

It’s still hard for me to see the logic in looking for the Truth in a point that already been infallibly decided though. The question is, why wouldn’t one just blindly follow the Chruch? It’s impossible for the Church to be wrong. See the contradiction I am trying to resolve?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
You keep talking about “blindly following”. What we need to know is, as opposed to what? If “blindly following” is wrong in your view, what way of following is right in your view?
 
st_marys_girl said:
As Catholics we believe that Mary was concieved without the stain of original sin and we are unsure whether or not she did in fact “die”. (As death is a consequence of original sin) I believe as I was taught that she was assumed into Heaven body and soul. I do not believe she had a fallen human nature as we do.
Click to expand...
The ancient tradition is that she did die and that is why Eastern Catholics call it the feast of the Dormition(means ‘falling asleep’ in Greek) rather than the Assumption.
 
expectthebest said:
I have not said what I believe. I have made points for the sake of the discussion. I am having a crisis in faith actually and that’s why I am trying to understand.
Click to expand...
OK. I’m sure people would have factored that into their replies if you had said so earlier.
The more I research, the more I find that there is not way I will understand because the Church can simply say that it’s infallible. End of story. Doesn’t matter. No need for thought, discussion, or anything else.
Click to expand...
Sounds like your research is at least in part reading Protestant material against Catholicism. Is that correct?
I don’t have proof when this became tradition. You don’t have proof when it did either. Your proof is that the Church said so, which matters to Catholics but not to anyone else.
Click to expand...
Which, if the Church is what she claims to be, is quite enough proof. So the real question is not when some teaching appeared in the surviving writings, but whether the Church is what she claims. If she is then the question of the particular teaching is answered. If she isn’t then the matter of a particular teaching is irrelevant, for she is a false church.
As for a plausable explanation, a heresy would come about if the Chruch leadership refused to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In fact, this is what the reformers accused the Chruch of doing. The reformers accused the Church of diverting away from true Catholicism.
Click to expand...
And the example of the reformers discredits your “silent slip into heresy” theory. There were certainly plenty of people ready to speak out against what they thought was heresy in the 16th century, so why not in the 5th or 6th? Why didn’t a single bishop attack this “new” (according to your theory) belief? Heresy, like any idea, spreads out in ripples from its source, and at the edges of those ripples it will encounter resistance. It doesn’t engulf the entire population overnight.

Further, why didn’t the Church ever teach that Mary was a sinner? You complain because the teaching of Mary’s sinlessness wasn’t visible in the surviving written record soon enough. Well, were is the authoritative teaching that Mary was a sinner? Show me a council that declared this. Show me a pope who declared it. If there were a question about it, some saying yes and some saying no, then a council would have decided the matter - that’s what councils do! But no council ever declared that Mary was a sinner.
So, I am coming to the conclusion that in order to be Catholic, I just need to come to the realization that I either accept it and try to believe it or be damned. In order to do this, I will need to stop researching and asking questions and just blindly follow. For me, this is a frustrating predicament.
Click to expand...
Maybe you’re just asking the wrong questions. Don’t ask peripheral questions, ask questions that will allow you to believe or disbelieve in the fundamental claims of the Church. Is she divinely guided and protected in teaching a preserving the faith, or isn’t she?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top