Discussing Mary

[LilyM]

Can you show me in the OT where baptism was a mandate?

He obeyed the law in other ways - for starters he was circumcised. Then he also paid the Temple taxes, celebrated the Jewish holidays such as Passover, worshipped in the synagogues and the Temple, and so forth. None of which God incarnate has any need to do.

 

[justasking4]

LilyM;2582821]

How dare you call my faith evil! Sounds like you’re not here either to genuinely learn or to genuinely teach at all, just to sow confusion and spite.

If something is false, is it evil?

‘I will send you the Holy Spirit and He will lead you into all truth’ - all truth = no error. The Apostles couldn’t have taught error, as you’ve said, they were infallible.

This may be true of the apostles but not of other leaders later who are not apostles.

The Church founded upon them - meaning among other things that it can trace its existence back in an unbroken link to them - must necessarily ALSO be infallible for that truth to be preserved. It can’t be otherwise.

Not so. It can be otherwise and is for the mere fact that men are fallen, false teachers in the church and the work of satan.

Sure we have Scripture, which is also infallible, but Scripture needs infallible interpreters in EVERY age to keep us in a right understanding of it, since new false interpretations and heresies come up in every age. Do you understand now why we claim infallibility also for the Church, who are our present guardians against error and heresy?

i’m familar with this infallible claim that is made but it has no foundation. Jesus never promised it. Secondly if they were infallible in their interpretations then its troubling that they have never interpreted the the scriptures infallibly.

Since our Church is the one founded upon the Apostles, it certainly means Christ’s promise to preserve his Church - based upon and dedicated to preserving the Apostles’ teaching - in all truth for all time has failed.

If this were true there would not be so many problems with it in history.

And there’s no such thing as being a ‘little’ prevailed upon by Hell, it’s like saying you’re a ‘little’ pregnant! Either you are prevailed upon by Hell or not.

Not so. The current priest scandal. What is the source of it? Did hell prevail in these cases?

Prove that it’s inspired-inerrant. The Apostles claimed so - but these same fallible (according to you) Apostles are the ones who wrote or indrectly dictated the NT.

Another topic for another time.

If their other teaching isn’t inspired-inerrant then neither is scripture.

What is this “other teaching” you are speaking of? If its not in scripture, its not inspired-inerrant.

You can’t divorce one thing from the other, all comes from the Holy Spirit or not.

Are you saying that all the teachings in the catholic church have their source in the Holy Spirit?

Jesus didn’t say ‘I will send the Holy Spirit, he will make sure you write the Bible which contains all truth but apart from that you’re on your own’. He said that the Apostles would possess all truth. So NONE of the Apostles’ teaching can be errant.

No problem there.

And if they had the fullness of that truth, and Peter’s Church will not have the gates of Hell prevail against it, then the Church founded upon him has to be able to PRESERVE that truth for all time. So its official teaching HAS to be infallible as well.

Your drawing conclusions that cannot be sustained by scripture nor history.
When you say the offical teachings have to be infallible do you mean inspired-inerrant?

No - the Church which guards and teaches Christ’s truth CANNOT err in all dimensions. Faith based on such an idea is built on the flimsiest quicksand, since you cannot then trust a single thing men have had a hand in.

Jesus nor any NT writer ever teaches that Mary was without sin or assumed. These are not teachings of Christ but men.

No, not even the Scripture, since fallen men who err in all dimensions of life would err in writing that too!

That would be true in other writings but no with the scriptures since it is only they that are inspired-inerrant by the power of God.

Doesn’t sound anything like the Rock Christ promised us upon which to found our faith.

Thats why you don’t want to look at Rome to be the rock with all its problems.

Jesus could not and would not build a church that is stronger than Hell itself on the fallible. And yet He built it upon Peter, so Peter MUST have been infallible. DO you accept this much by now?

The problem is that Peter nor any other apostles ever make this claim about him being infallible. If he were Paul would have been out of line for rebuking him.

 

[justasking4]

He obeyed the law in other ways - for starters he was circumcised. Then he also paid the Temple taxes, celebrated the Jewish holidays such as Passover, worshipped in the synagogues and the Temple, and so forth. None of which God incarnate has any need to do.

That may be. Now what does the OT say about baptism?

 

[justasking4]

Remember what the purpose of baptism was though. It TOO was designed to cleanse or purify one of sin. It in fact had exactly the same purpose as Mary’s offering in the Temple.

That’s why John recognised that Jesus had no need of it, since He was sinless. But Jesus did it anyway. Exactly the same as Mary, she offered in the Temple though she had no need. She too is identifying herself with mankind, as you put it, although personally sinless.

We know from other scriptures that Jesus was sinless. However with Mary there is nothing in the text in Luke that would lead anyone to make the conclusion that “she offered in the Temple though she had no need. She too is identifying herself with mankind,”… The best explaination is that she saw herself as a sinner. It does say anything about there nor anywhere else in the scriptures that she was indentifying with mankind.

 

[jabelltulsa]

Whether it was local or over all it still is part of the church and thereby guilty of error. Remember the claim: the church one.

The indulgences was applicable to everyone so that would apply to the entire church.

Yes, but only the successor of Peter is infallable - The Keys to the Kingdom were given only to him (and his successors).

So, by your logic, since as Baptized people, we are part of the Church, and therefore we are all wrong, because at least one of us throught time has been wrong. Ok, I see how you get to that conclusion.

Tell me, then, who is infallable? I believe that the Marian doctrines are infallable, because the successor of Peter (the Vicar of Christ) declared them. This infallability is spoken of in the Sacred Scripture as being attributed to Peter first and the Apostles.

Who do you think is infallable, and why?

 

[LilyM]

That may be. Now what does the OT say about baptism?

May be? It is absolutely so - read your NT. And who cares what the OT says about baptism? It’s entirely off the topic of this thread.

The point is that Jesus obeyed the law though he had no need. He wasn’t born knowing to do this - he grew in wisdom and grace like the rest of us. He learned it from those around Him as we learn, so He learned it from Mary.

He learned from her through the obedience to her which he showed, for example, after the Finding in the Temple.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

No - if the word ‘kecharitomene’ isn’t used of them then it ISN’T the same thing as Mary, nor the same level.

I would also point out that Luke wrote both.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

LilyM said:
How dare you call my faith evil! Sounds like you’re not here either to genuinely learn or to genuinely teach at all, just to sow confusion and spite.

Justasking4 said; If something is false, is it evil?

Therefore I see Justasking4’s interpretation and understanding as false, so JustAsking4 must be evil?

 

[davidv]

That may be. Now what does the OT say about baptism?

Do you me circumcision? NT Baptism replaces OT circumcision as the initiation rite into God’s family.

 

[justasking4]

Therefore I see Justasking4’s interpretation and understanding as false, so JustAsking4 must be evil?

Do you consider sola scriptura evil since its contradicts many catholic doctrines?

 

[justasking4]

Do you me circumcision? NT Baptism replaces OT circumcision as the initiation rite into God’s family.

So we agree that baptism in not mentioned as a requirement in the OT?

 

[justasking4]

I got this paragraph from Kark Keatings letter dated Aug 14. You can find the rest of the letter there. I’d like to know what you think of this paragraph below.

Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:

Tomorrow is the Feast of the Assumption, best known to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists as “the Marian dogma that isn’t mentioned in Scripture.” We can concede that point–it is true that Scripture nowhere mentions the Assumption--while noting the antiquity of the belief plus the fact that nothing in Scripture contradicts the Assumption.

It seems that he is admitting at least that there is no mention of it in scripture.
Secondly, do you agree that if a belief is not contradicted by scripture it is right?

 

[davidv]

So we agree that baptism in not mentioned as a requirement in the OT?

No. Because of the typology of the OT. I.e., Circumcision is a type of baptism, like Moses was a type of Christ.

 

[HailMary]

So we agree that baptism in not mentioned as a requirement in the OT?

St. Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

 

[justasking4]

I would also point out that Luke wrote both.

What does it mean in Acts 2:4 that those present were also filled with the Holy Spirit? The word “filled” means - Persons to be filled with something, i.e., to be wholly imbued, affected, influenced with or by something, with the gen. of thing as with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9);
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G4130). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

Would it be right to say they to never sinned since “**wholly” means completely and entirely: totally and in every way or to the fullest extent **Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
??

 

[justasking4]

HailMary;2583670]St. Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage,

huh? How do you get this out of that passage? Actually he is using to different concepts to explain what has happened to us in Christ.

he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.”

Again i don’t see that in these passages. The circumcision he is referring to has a different function than baptism.

Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

The problem with comparing circumcision with baptism is that in circumcision on the males are circumcised and not females. In baptism all are to be baptised. In baptism, a prefession of faith is required while male babies were circumcised.

 

[jabelltulsa]

I find many catholics who want to hide behind this kind of statements. Jesus never promised that the church would never be able to teach error. The scriptures warn of false teachers in the church itself that will decieve many. For you to believe this is to go against the clear teachings of the scriptures. Men are fallible and can and do error. To claim as you do they cannot is not grounded in the scriptures nor can it be supported by history.

If what you say is true, then why was there a counter reformation in the catholic church around the time of the reformation? To have a counter reformation in your church is saying there is something wrong with some of its doctrines and practices that need to be reformed.

J-bell’s Fiance

I am not sure that you have a clear understanding of what the Roman Catholic church teaches, you are repeatedly making claims that the church is not infalliable and that it does not have roots in scripture or history and that her claims are unprovable …However, You have not provided any proof that your beliefs are unfaulty. I challenge you to study history and prove that the Church is not what she say’s she is. you repeatedly ask those here to defend there position and then challenge there answers to your questions i am asking you prove to me historically and scripturally that what you believe is Correct and what Roman Catholics believe is False…No opinions please, Solid Facts.

 

[HailMary]

huh? How do you get this out of that passage? Actually he is using to different concepts to explain what has happened to us in Christ.

Again i don’t see that in these passages. The circumcision he is referring to has a different function than baptism.

The problem with comparing circumcision with baptism is that in circumcision on the males are circumcised and not females. In baptism all are to be baptised. In baptism, a prefession of faith is required while male babies were circumcised.

Well, those are you interpretations. I prefer to trust in the Holy Spirit, through the teachings of the Church.

Not to mention, everyone prior to the 18th century, I would imagine, would disagree with you.

 

[MariaG]

Not so. There are no facts from scripture that shows Mary was assumed, without sin or queen of heaven. There is nothing in scripture that even comes close to saying these things about her.

You deny that Christ is King?

Unless you do, and unless you wish to ignore the plain scripture that calls the mother of the King, Queen, you are simply protesting against the Catholic Church rather than anything that is “not biblical”.

Christ is King. Mary is His mother. In scripture, the mother of the King is ALWAYS the Queen.

But I see that my lack of time has made this post rather untimely.

 

[kaycee]

You deny that Christ is King?

Unless you do, and unless you wish to ignore the plain scripture that calls the mother of the King, Queen, you are simply protesting against the Catholic Church rather than anything that is “not biblical”.

Christ is King. Mary is His mother. In scripture, the mother of the King is ALWAYS the Queen.

But I see that my lack of time has made this post rather untimely.

Is there any record that she was called Queen by anyone when she was alive or even 200 years after her death?