Do you have questions about Catholic beliefs & Practices

[benhur]

Protestants tend to emphasize God’s “salvation” almost exclusively to the forgiveness of sins actually committed.

Hi pat,

Well yes.You do not need forgiveness for something you did not do.

However, Sacred Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact:

Understand. Of course there is grace both in forgiveness in sin, and grace in being kept from sin. In the end ,* all* in Christ are presented blameless, as if we had never sinned, like Catholic Mary.

Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. (Jude 24-25) END Quote]

Again, the degree of sin is mute. You can be perfect like Mary, or like the thief on the cross. Both will be presented blameless: the OT saints thru faith in the future Calvary and ever present Savior, and the NT saints thru the past Calvary and ever present Lord.

It is not necessary for Mary to have been “highly favored” as Christ was “full of grace and truth” John 1:14. Catholics say it is fitting. Perhaps. I say it was fitting that she was like you and I, not perfect , but made righteous in faith in the promises and traditions of Judaism/Christianity. Christ came to a fallen world, to touch fallen man, and to shed His blood on fallen soil. That Mary be fallen is all too fitting. She, like us, was both fallen yet righteous thru the Lord.

Most translations have Mary as "highly favored’ not “full of grace”. I understand the CC uses the "full of grace’ translation and that this implies full to the brim as in perfect, sinless, even immaculately conceived. We have “full of grace” in John 1 speaking of the Lord, and it is not the same Greek wording as for Mary. Many of us also see the grace, the favoring, as not describing her state of condition, but in describing her state in/for being chosen. It was in her being chosen that set her apart, from amongst women. This was the grace, not that she was special in and of herself before the annunciation, otherwise she would have been above all women, and not amongst them (that is, all the other righteous Jewish maidens).

Thank you for stating the ‘fitting’ part though.Not everybody seems to know or understand that when dialoguing with others.

Blessings

 

[adrift]

If the Catholic Marian dogmas are as important as some Catholics indicate, I am puzzled by why the Apostle Paul didn’t mention the Virgin Mary in his letters to the early Christian believers in his epistles as he taught them the fundamentals of Christianity. Shouldn’t such an important dogma have been touched upon in Scripture?

For example, I don’t recall Paul ever instructing anyone in any of his letters to the Romans, Ephesians, or Corinthians to have a special devotion to Mary or anything along those lines.

On the other hand, St Paul was clear as to what the heart of the gospel was, as he did in I Corinthians 2:2:

“For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified”

What you are arguing is a fallacy know as argument from silence. Paul didn’t mention Jesus’ parables, miracles, the Sermon on the Mount, or Lord’s Prayer. Now according to your statement shouldn’t have Paul touched upon them. The answer is what I have already mentioned to say the scripture is silent so it must mean it wasn’t important is a fallacy

 

[adrift]

Hi pat,

Well yes.You do not need forgiveness for something you did not do. Understand. Of course there is grace both in forgiveness in sin, and grace in being kept from sin. In the end ,* all* in Christ are presented blameless, as if we had never sinned, like Catholic Mary.

Again, the degree of sin is mute. You can be perfect like Mary, or like the thief on the cross. Both will be presented blameless: the OT saints thru faith in the future Calvary and ever present Savior, and the NT saints thru the past Calvary and ever present Lord.

It is not necessary for Mary to have been “highly favored” as Christ was “full of grace and truth” John 1:14. Catholics say it is fitting. Perhaps. I say it was fitting that she was like you and I, not perfect , but made righteous in faith in the promises and traditions of Judaism/Christianity. Christ came to a fallen world, to touch fallen man, and to shed His blood on fallen soil. That Mary be fallen is all too fitting. She, like us, was both fallen yet righteous thru the Lord.

Most translations have Mary as "highly favored’ not “full of grace”. I understand the CC uses the "full of grace’ translation and that this implies full to the brim as in perfect, sinless, even immaculately conceived. We have “full of grace” in John 1 speaking of the Lord, and it is not the same Greek wording as for Mary. Many of us also see the grace, the favoring, as not describing her state of condition, but in describing her state in/for being chosen. It was in her being chosen that set her apart, from amongst women. This was the grace, not that she was special in and of herself before the annunciation, otherwise she would have been above all women, and not amongst them (that is, all the other righteous Jewish maidens).

Thank you for stating the ‘fitting’ part though.Not everybody seems to know or understand that when dialoguing with others.

Blessings

I found this very informative on the Greek highly favored it is a little more complicated than I thought . What is the Greek of Luke 1:28’s “full of grace”?
I don’t want to quote and take it out of context.

 

[adrift]

Hi a,

Understand. As another example: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” Heb 9:27 Yet apparently Enoch and Elijah were exceptions. I would only say that it seems exceptions are explicit. Elijah for instance is well documented in scripture.Very little interpretation needed. It is also partly substantiated for example in the Transfiguration and implicitly as the two witnesses in Revelations.

Mary as an exception is not explicit. It does require interpretation, by implication at best. One can also say by itself this exception seems inconsequential during the tradition’s origin, serving its own purpose (as fitting one who mothered the Savior).
Yet the dogma on Mary evolved, and indeed the ‘consequences’ increased. Now she also is seen by interpretation and implication also in Revelations. Now she is the Queen of Heaven, and even the second Eve by Tradition, on par with explicit scripture of Christ being the second Adam. One could say this is just like Elijah’s exception and its further consequences, lending to better understanding of the original exception. I am not of that opinion. The two cases of Elijah and Mary showing ‘exception’ are different, and have different authoritative reasoning. Hence one has a relatively quick universal understanding and the other a more arduous, long road to Catholic declaration.

To me this is one of our first examples of 'tradition" having equal authority to scripture. We have Augustine who on one hand admonishes Holy Writ as superlative to teach us all things, also stands by the tradition of Mary being sinless despite citing the scripture of everyone having sinned.(but you were still allowed to believe either way at this time). Tradition/church made the exception.“Seek and ye shall find” works both for digging deep to see the the diamond in the rough, or for justifying that which is only implied, and may not be. Time will tell.

Blessings

Hail Mary, Conceived Without Sin
By: Tim Staples

 

[adrift]

I’m not sure if this question is already somewhere on this page, if so I haven’t found it.
But I’d really like to know what the catholic church says when it comes to prophecy?

Does is still exist and if so how does the church practice it?

Thank you

Prophecy

Yes I think it still exist

 

[adrift]

My last post on the transfiguration.
Matt 16:28. “till you see the Son of man coming in His kingdom.” (see also Mark 9:1).
Then six days three of them see Jesus talking with Moses and Elijah. Luke tells (Luke 9:31) they “appeared in glory”.
Elijah at the time this happened should still inhabit his physical body. Moses should still be in Abraham’s bosom. How then can they " appear in glory"
We know Peter,James and John have “tasted death” and we still pray for “Thy kingdom” to come. We know the kingdom is established after Jesus returns. Therefore this vision was of a future event.
That should explain how they were talking about His death which at the time of the vision was yet to come. For Moses and Elijah it would be past.

Interesting to put together scripture out of context to arrive at a comfortable conclusion. However the appear in glory is followed by and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem. Obviously this was not a future event as Jesus had not yet gone to Jerusalem. The exodus that is referred to in the future is Jesus’ crucifixion. It makes no sense to say they were seeing into the future.

 

[blanchardman]

Interesting to put together scripture out of context to arrive at a comfortable conclusion. However the appear in glory is followed by and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem. Obviously this was not a future event as Jesus had not yet gone to Jerusalem. The exodus that is referred to in the future is Jesus’ crucifixion. It makes no sense to say they were seeing into the future.

First, what did I take out of context? I didn’t quote the entire three or four verses to save space and time. The context is Jesus makes a statement in Matt 16:28 the next verse he tells who went. The next verse he tells what happened. There are parallel verses in Mark and Luke that add to the story. I used these for clarity.
I will ask you the same question I asked earlier.
Does Matt 17:2 fulfill the promise made in Matt 16:28?
If not then what is the fulfillment of that promise?

 

[benhur]

I found this very informative on the Greek highly favored it is a little more complicated than I thought . What is the Greek of Luke 1:28’s “full of grace”?
I don’t want to quote and take it out of context.

Thank you .Read it . Seemed pretty fair. One would have to be a Greek scholar to further discern the article. Glad to see he admits a NT saint,even us,can be ‘full of grace’ as Stephen was. Understand his words of explicit vs implicit, and that scripture is not explicit on IC but implicit , and that by tradition.

Blessings

 

[patmiron]

Patrick is Matt 17:2-3 fulfillment of Matt 16:28?

Mt 17: 2-3
“[2] And he was transfigured before them. And his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow. [3] And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him”

Mt 16: 28 :26
"For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?:.

Only in the sense of a theological discussion. As Mt 17 exhibits for ALL the possibility of Eternal Life AFTER the 2nd Judgment [the first Judgment being at the instant of death]; the second being End times fulfillment & the reuniting of our at death and decomposed bodies now following the example and the Promise of Jesus GLORIFIED Body.

John 7:39
Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive, who believed in him: for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Romans 8:17
And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.

God Bless you,

Patrick [PJM]

 

[patmiron]

Hi pat,

Well yes.You do not need forgiveness for something you did not do. Understand. Of course there is grace both in forgiveness in sin, and grace in being kept from sin. In the end ,* all* in Christ are presented blameless, as if we had never sinned, like Catholic Mary.

Again, the degree of sin is mute. You can be perfect like Mary, or like the thief on the cross. Both will be presented blameless: the OT saints thru faith in the future Calvary and ever present Savior, and the NT saints thru the past Calvary and ever present Lord.

It is not necessary for Mary to have been “highly favored” as Christ was “full of grace and truth” John 1:14. Catholics say it is fitting. Perhaps. I say it was fitting that she was like you and I, not perfect , but made righteous in faith in the promises and traditions of Judaism/Christianity. Christ came to a fallen world, to touch fallen man, and to shed His blood on fallen soil. That Mary be fallen is all too fitting. She, like us, was both fallen yet righteous thru the Lord.

**Most translations have Mary as "highly favored’ not “full of grace”. I understand the CC uses the "full of grace’ translation and that this implies full to the brim as in perfect, sinless, even immaculately conceived. We have “full of grace” in John 1 speaking of the Lord, and it is not the same Greek wording as for Mary. Many of us also see the grace, the favoring, as not describing her state of condition, but in describing her state in/for being chosen. It was in her being chosen that set her apart, from amongst women. This was the grace, not that she was special in and of herself before the annunciation, otherwise she would have been above all women, and not amongst them (that is, all the other righteous Jewish maidens).
**

Thank you for stating the ‘fitting’ part though.Not everybody seems to know or understand that when dialoguing with others.

Blessings

And MOST [including SOME Catholic bibles are wrong

The Latin Vulgate
Luke 1:28
28 et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have** gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

More than 1,000 years before the KJB

Douay-Rhiems Catholic Bible
Luke 1:28
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

About 50 years BEFORE the KJB Amen!

God Bless you,

Patrick [PJM]

 

[patmiron]

Interesting to put together scripture out of context to arrive at a comfortable conclusion. However the appear in glory is followed by and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem. Obviously this was not a future event as Jesus had not yet gone to Jerusalem. The exodus that is referred to in the future is Jesus’ crucifixion. It makes no sense to say they were seeing into the future.

PLEASE see my post #371 below:thumbsup:

 

[In_His_Grace]

I’m NOT sure I understand the point of you’re question> IF by “one bishop” you mean Peter; I have an answer for you. Other than Peter I’m confused by you’re question. Please clarify it and I’ll be happy to respond

Regarding Peter is the issue of Jesus initiated SUCCESSION by absolute necessity:
Mt 10:1-8

[1] And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. [2] And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, [3] James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, [4] Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. [5] These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: **Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not.

[6] But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel**. [7] And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. [8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give"

NOW see how Jesus Himself changed the MANDATE

Mt 28:19-20

[YOU!} “[19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world”

ONLY though Succession of Powers and Authority could our Blessed Lords MANDATE possibly be fulfilled:thumbsup:.

Does this address your concern?

God Bless you,

Patrick [PJM] the OP

Thank you Patrick and God bless you as well.

 

[In_His_Grace]

THANKS, but how does that alter what I had shared.

Luther was an apostate catholic-priest who choose freely to establish HIS OWN religion to compete with what the RCC had up to that point taught for a VERY long time prior to his abandonment of Christ One True set of Faith beliefs.

So my friend; what am I missing about the point you were making?

God Bless you,

Patrick [PJM] the OP

The link I provided was an attempt to help you grasp my understanding of what the Christian Church is (Ecclesiology). As for Luther, he was a fallen, sinful, flawed human being and I don’t agree with some of his opinions (some were way over the top for sure) but he is one of my heroes.

Blessings

 

[adrift]

First, what did I take out of context? I didn’t quote the entire three or four verses to save space and time. The context is Jesus makes a statement in Matt 16:28 the next verse he tells who went. The next verse he tells what happened. There are parallel verses in Mark and Luke that add to the story. I used these for clarity.
I will ask you the same question I asked earlier.
Does Matt 17:2 fulfill the promise made in Matt 16:28?
If not then what is the fulfillment of that promise?

The scripture Matt 16:28. “till you see the Son of man coming in His kingdom.” you seem to believe is answered by the Transfiguration. I believe this refers not to the Transfiguration but to the Ascension. The answer to your question is no it was fulfilled at the Ascension.

 

[benhur]

I found this very informative on the Greek highly favored it is a little more complicated than I thought . What is the Greek of Luke 1:28’s “full of grace”?
I don’t want to quote and take it out of context.

Hi a,

Here is pretty good rebuttal though a bit tougher in tone than yours. But it does give a pretty good comprehensive view of Mary doctrine from our point of view.

reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/the-bible-does-not-teach-marys.html

Blessings

 

[benhur]

And MOST [including SOME Catholic bibles are wrong

and so was Stephen. So we have* full of grace* used twice (Jesus and Stephen in bible, ) and the Greek is “plaras karitos”, not kecharitōmenē. But yes , Jerome translated the Greek kecharitōmenē into 'full of grace" for Mary but that is not a literal translation. Literal ‘full of grace’ is ‘plaras karitos’.

I can not argue against your point that all other translations containing highly favored and not full of grace are wrong according to Catholic Tradition of scriptural translation and interpretation.

Blessings

[/QUOTE]

 

[In_His_Grace]

Thank you .Read it . Seemed pretty fair. One would have to be a Greek scholar to further discern the article. Glad to see he admits a NT saint,even us,can be ‘full of grace’ as Stephen was. Understand his words of explicit vs implicit, and that scripture is not explicit on IC but implicit , and that by tradition.

Blessings

…explicit vs implicit, and that scripture is not explicit on IC but implicit , and that by tradition.

An important distinction benhur and I agree. Not at all explicit, implicit yes, tradition yes, development of doctrine per Newman possibly?

Blessings

 

[blanchardman]

This is a reply to posts 370 & 375:
375 first: Adrift thank you for a precise answer (with explanation). How can His departing be His coming?
Now 370: Patrick thanks for your reply. Just one problem,I am not sure but it sounds like you are agreeing with me but putting the vision 1000 years further into the future.

 

[patmiron]

The link I provided was an attempt to help you grasp my understanding of what the Christian Church is (Ecclesiology). As for Luther, he was a fallen, sinful, flawed human being and I don’t agree with some of his opinions (some were way over the top for sure) but he is one of my heroes.

Blessings

OK, so just how do you reckon that never before in the then 3,500 year old God-man relationship that was perfected by Jesus choosing to folow what would naturally have been his own OT history of always just:

One God’
One set of faith beliefs
and NOW one “chosen people” that Jesus termed in Mt 16:18 as “MY CHURCH”

So how does this absolutely necessary criteria apply to Protestants who a great many differing and different churches and also very many differing and competing sets of faith beliefs.

I just don’t see HOW they can possibility be connected:shrug: What from you’re perspective is the evidence of your position?

God Bless you,

PJM

 

[patmiron]

Though dealing with another context I think, an early father quipped, " Let us not suppose that because God can that He did".

Blessings

Very good

But that seems to be a supposition for you and Protestants to respond too; not the Catholic Church that Jesus established

God Bless you,

PJM