Doctrine Questions

[bjcros]

I am not catholic and trying to understand some of Catholic doctrine because my teacher. He isn’t very good at defending his faith. I have problems with the implications of the statement that Mary was without sin. An implication that I see would be that Mary was not human. because all humans have sin. It is part of human nature. If Mary wasn’t human then neither was Jesus and he couldn’t be our representative. Therefore because Jesus was our representative Mary was human, and because Mary was human then she had sin. I am not saying that Jesus had sin, because the original sin is passed down through man, not woman. Jesus wasn’t born of a man but of God. So he was both human and divine. Another implication would be that Christ’s death isn’t necessary. Jesus’ death was neccesary. If anyone is without sin then they don’t need atonement for sins. Jesus died for atonement of our sins. In the garden Jesus asks God to let the cup pass from him, and if there was any other way. There wasn’t another way(but if Mary was without sin there would have been another way). Christ’s death was neccesary. In Romans it says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

I also have problems with the idea of penance. I see it as placeing an emphasis on works. Despite, we are not saved by works of rightousness. I understand that there is one verse that mentions penance which Catholics use. I understand that it was because of a translating error. It is from the latin vulgate.The idea that Mary was sinless comes from the latin vulgate as well. Each only occurs once that I have heard.

I also disagree as most non-catholic Christians do about the Eucharist. I don’t see it as the actual body and blood of Christ. Yes, Christ says this is my body and this is my blood. However, Christ blood wasn’t poured out until Friday neither was Christ’s body broken. So even in the Last Supper they are Symbols.

I also don’t understand confession. When I sin against someone else, there are two I need to confess to. They are the one I sinned against and God. When I sin in private against myself there is only one I need to confess to and that is God. I understand the idea of an accountability partner, but don’t see it as necessary for salvation. My teacher described confession with a priest like having a accountability partner, but I don’t see it as the same thing.

I don’t reecognize the Pope as infallible, but that is a different thread, and I am begining to understand that somewhat.

Those are most of my problems with Catholicism. Thank you in advance for advice.

 

[Lorarose]

There is a “search” function on this forum.
Use it.

These issues have been discussed over and over.

 

[bjcros]

Lorarose:

There is a “search” function on this forum.
Use it.

These issues have been discussed over and over.

I was told that I prob should start another thread.
And why didn’t you address any of the questions. They will continue to be discussed to.

 

[Lorarose]

These issues have been addressed hundreds of times on this forum.
If you go to the “search” function and type in words like
“infallibility”
“immaculate conception”
“Mary”
“whore of Babylon”
“papacy”

You will find these issues have been dealt with extensively.
Maybe others here are willing to have the exact same debate with you that they’ve had dozens of other times, but I gotta tell ya…I’m plum tuckered out.

I promise you that if you use your search button - you will receive the exact same answers to your questions than if we begin a whole “new” discussion that could span over hundreds of posts.
You will receive the exact same answers if you will just review previous threads.

 

[Genesis315]

catholic.com/library/mary_saints.asp

 

[MariaG]

posted by bjcros

I have problems with the implications of the statement that Mary was without sin. An implication that I see would be that Mary was not human. because all humans have sin. It is part of human nature.

Adam and Eve were created without sin. They were human. They choose to sin, but they were originally created without sin. Since the rest of your argument starts with a false presumption, the rest, too is false.

Another implication would be that Christ’s death isn’t necessary. Jesus’ death was neccesary. If anyone is without sin then they don’t need atonement for sins. Jesus died for atonement of our sins. In the garden Jesus asks God to let the cup pass from him, and if there was any other way. There wasn’t another way(but if Mary was without sin there would have been another way). Christ’s death was neccesary. In Romans it says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Mary was saved from sin in anticipation of Christ’s death on the Cross. Time does not have the same meaning for God. We are linear, God is not. Mary was only created without the stain of original sin in anticipation of Christ’s redemptive work on the Cross.

I also have problems with the idea of penance. I see it as placeing an emphasis on works. Despite, we are not saved by works of rightousness. I understand that there is one verse that mentions penance which Catholics use. I understand that it was because of a translating error.

I also don’t understand confession. When I sin against someone else, there are two I need to confess to. They are the one I sinned against and God. When I sin in private against myself there is only one I need to confess to and that is God. I understand the idea of an accountability partner, but don’t see it as necessary for salvation. My teacher described confession with a priest like having a accountability partner, but I don’t see it as the same thing.

I put these two together because they are related.

Let’s start with the Bible verses first. This is from my Max Lucado Study Bible. The New King James Version. This is a Protestant bible and translation.

John 20:21 - 23 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are retained.”

This is the King James Version without the thees and thous. Yes?

From this, it has been taught and understood by the early Church through today that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Penance. For someone to “forgive or retain” a person’s sins, first they must hear them. Many Protestants say this means go and teach forgiveness, but even your own translation does not say that. It says go and forgive.

As to the “works” part, most Christians would agree that to be truly sorry for something, you need to fix what you did wrong. In other words, if I break your window, is it enough to go to you and say “I am sorry I broke your window.” Or do I also need to pay for it to be fixed?
Here are also writings from those who spoke to and were taught by the apostles if you want to compare the teaching of the Catholic Church and the teaching of the early church.

catholic.com/library/Confession.asp

I will stop here since that is a lot to digest and discuss, and I know I won’t be the only one. There will always be those who tell you “do a search” and those who say “post a new thread”. I tell both. In your case, I felt you needed to post your specific objections and questions. I am sorry you got attacked for following my advice.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[adstrinity]

Bonjour bjcros!!

Alright, let me see if I can help you out with SOME of these. I apologise that you don’t get them (and I am saying this in charity, and not to be superior), BUT, this is the kind of thing that you have been taught AGAINST, so, when you DO get them (I used to not be Catholic, either), they will always be stumbling blocks.

Okay, Mary, Imacculate Conception. Conceived w/o sin. (The more I am thinking about this, the more I’m thinking how deep I will have to get). First of all, no, it’s not a mistranslation. That’s the first thing I want you to understand. There was a Chruch before there was the Bible. For the first 400 years of Christianity, we didn’t have the Bible as we know it today, they only went by the first 45 books, now the Old Testament. It wasn’t until 397 at the Synod of Carthage that we got the New Testament. At this point, all the Catholic beliefs were already widely known.

So! Back to Mary. She was 100% human. She was conceived & born of St. Joachim & St. Anne, according to tradition. WHEN SHE WAS CONCEIVED, God granted her a special favour that she gets her sins forgiven BEFORE hand. She NEEDED a saviour, too. She says so as much when talking to St. Gabriel. This is how it was explained to me & made me understand. Say that one is walking down the street & falls into a manhole, one now needs help OUT of that situation – saviour. Now, another is walking down that same street, and, again, doesn’t see the manhole opening, BUT, BEFORE she falls in, somebody prevents her from doing so. See? Do you understand? Person two needed a saviour as well, BUT, they got the saviour BEFORE it was too late. At the moment of conception, God intervened and made it so that she did NOT have the stain of original sin, nor the inclination TO sin, that is to say, notice in Genesis & in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the 3 people that were perfect, the devil could not infiltrate them? The devil had to be out side of them…think about that…they didn’t think about eating for pleasure, they didn’t think lustfully, they weren’t driven by base desires. If the devil was going to make them fall, he’d have to do it EXTERNALLY. What I’m getting at here, is that Mary, when tempted, it was easier to say no because it wasn’t a part of her.

Next: We don’t believe in once saved, always saved. We believe in repentance as well as penance. Because we are baptised does not make us perfect & Revelation tells us that one must be PERFECT before entering Heaven. We are not saved by works alone. I think if I elabourate more on this, I will misrepresent Catholicism & start something here with you, and believe me, I REALLY don’t want to do that.

NO!!! THAT IS REALLY THE BODY & BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST!!! By saying that his blood wasn’t poured out until Good Friday is correct, BUT, you are limiting God. He is not bound as we are. If He says “This is my body”, then, even though he is sitting right there, he can make it so that IT IS HIS BODY!! This one is a stumbling block, admittingly. It’s hard to believe that that IS what it IS, BUT!, to deny it would be to call Jesus a liar. Of all the things Jesus says & we cannot interpret, why is this the hardest?

And, finally, I suggest you do some research on Padre Pio…as I have been meaning to do, here’s why: He didn’t forgive a woman’s sin. She came to him for confession & he wouldn’t forgive her because she was holding out on him. “Bind & loose”.

I’m sure that by now this thread has gotten numerous hits & my reply is but one of many, others explaining MUCH better than I have.

May I also suggest: newadvent.org/cathen/
AND, an excellent place to start on what the Catholic Church teaches: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Good luck & God bless!!!

 

[bjcros]

MariaG:

Adam and Eve were created without sin. They were human. They choose to sin, but they were originally created without sin. Since the rest of your argument starts with a false presumption, the rest, too is false.

Mary was saved from sin in anticipation of Christ’s death on the Cross. Time does not have the same meaning for God. We are linear, God is not. Mary was only created without the stain of original sin in anticipation of Christ’s redemptive work on the Cross.

I put these two together because they are related.

Let’s start with the Bible verses first. This is from my Max Lucado Study Bible. The New King James Version. This is a Protestant bible and translation.

John 20:21 - 23 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are retained.”

This is the King James Version without the thees and thous. Yes?

From this, it has been taught and understood by the early Church through today that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Penance. For someone to “forgive or retain” a person’s sins, first they must hear them. Many Protestants say this means go and teach forgiveness, but even your own translation does not say that. It says go and forgive.

As to the “works” part, most Christians would agree that to be truly sorry for something, you need to fix what you did wrong. In other words, if I break your window, is it enough to go to you and say “I am sorry I broke your window.” Or do I also need to pay for it to be fixed?
Here are also writings from those who spoke to and were taught by the apostles if you want to compare the teaching of the Catholic Church and the teaching of the early church.

catholic.com/library/Confession.asp

I will stop here since that is a lot to digest and discuss, and I know I won’t be the only one. There will always be those who tell you “do a search” and those who say “post a new thread”. I tell both. In your case, I felt you needed to post your specific objections and questions. I am sorry you got attacked for following my advice.

God Bless,
Maria

Is sin not part of human nature ever since Adam and Eve? Paul writes just as in Adam all sinned so in Christ all are forgiven. Where is the scriptual evidence of “Mary was saved from sin in anticipation of Christ’s death on the Cross.” The only scriptual evidence anyone has ever given me this is Luke 1:28. The way they come to the conclusion of this is through the translation. The NIV leads to a different conclusion than the latin vulgate.
That isn’t where the understanding of penance comes from. Penance isn’t going and forgiving others. My teacher said that he believes Penance is doing something to get right with God. You should pay for the window to be fixed but I don’t think it is neccessary for forgiveness though. I don’t mind being attacked. I can hold my own. and it wasn’t your fault that I followed your advice or that I was attacked.

 

[Hildebrand]

bjcros:

. because all humans have sin. It is part of human nature.

This is one place where you got it wrong. Sin is NOT apart of human nature. God created us free from original sin. It was man who brought sin into the world through original sin.

Jesus was fully divine and fully human, he did not sin either. So if all humans sinned, then by logic, Jesus sinned too. Which is obviously incorrect.

To understand the Immaculate Conception, feel free to use the search engine as others have suggested. You can even do a search on “Original Sin” to understand it better.

Best of Luck.

 

[MariaG]

posted by bjcros
Is sin not part of human nature ever since Adam and Eve? Paul writes just as in Adam all sinned so in Christ all are forgiven.

This is from here at the CA Library. catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Where is the scriptual evidence of “Mary was saved from sin in anticipation of Christ’s death on the Cross.” The only scriptual evidence anyone has ever given me this is Luke 1:28. The way they come to the conclusion of this is through the translation. The NIV leads to a different conclusion than the latin vulgate.

Well if we believed in Scripture alone, you may have a point, even though the article claims that you have the poor traslation from turning “full of grace” into “highly favored daughter”

But it is clear from the writings of the early church that Mary was considered free from sin.

catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

That isn’t where the understanding of penance comes from. Penance isn’t going and forgiving others. My teacher said that he believes Penance is doing something to get right with God. You should pay for the window to be fixed but I don’t think it is neccessary for forgiveness though.

I started in my explanation, the explanation of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, also called Penance or Confession. The verses I referred to from the Bible show where Christ himself showed us how He wanted us to confess our sins. (John 20:21-23)

As for penance, we do something not because the work gains forgiveness for us, but because it shows we are truly sorry for what we have done.

I sense I do not understand your problem here. I came from a Evangelical background. You are more calvinist and I think there is something I just don’t get about your objections that stem from that.

In the churches I was in even before the Catholic one, they would say things like, “If you are truly sorry, that will include a desire to make things right”

Can you honestly say you are truly sorry for breaking someone’s window, truly repentent, if you don’t try in some way, to fix the damage you have done?

This too is from CA here Maybe this will help. catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp

For sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word emphasizing one of its aspects. During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, “the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God “had given such authority to men” (Matt. 9:8).

I don’t mind being attacked. I can hold my own. and it wasn’t your fault that I followed your advice or that I was attacked.

Good. Doesn’t make it right, and it probably happen again , but sometimes we all get tired of explaining the same misconceptions over and over again. When* I* get tired of it, I just try to take some time off

God Bless,
Maria

 

[jimmy]

bjcros:

Is sin not part of human nature ever since Adam and Eve? Paul writes just as in Adam all sinned so in Christ all are forgiven. Where is the scriptual evidence of “Mary was saved from sin in anticipation of Christ’s death on the Cross.” The only scriptual evidence anyone has ever given me this is Luke 1:28. The way they come to the conclusion of this is through the translation. The NIV leads to a different conclusion than the latin vulgate.
That isn’t where the understanding of penance comes from. Penance isn’t going and forgiving others. My teacher said that he believes Penance is doing something to get right with God. You should pay for the window to be fixed but I don’t think it is neccessary for forgiveness though. I don’t mind being attacked. I can hold my own. and it wasn’t your fault that I followed your advice or that I was attacked.

Where is the scriptural evidence of sola scriptura?

 

[petra]

bjcros:

I am not catholic and trying to understand some of Catholic doctrine . . .

For the issue of penance, I highly recommend the book, The Salvation Controversy (chapter 4), by James (Jimmy) Akin.

For the issue of the Eucharist, I highly recommend This is My Body, by Mark Shea.

I would also encourage you to learn as much about the early church as possible. You will find that the first 300 years of Christianity (which Protestant identify as being before the Catholic Church was started) looks very Catholic. The early Christians had the same understanding of the Eucharist as Catholics and Orthodox do. It was not symbolic and was understood to actually be the body and blood of Christ.

The same holds true with the early Church’s understanding and practice of confession and penance. Actually, the earliest Christians confessed their sins in front of the whole congregation. As the Church grew, this became impractical and the sacrament was modified to include only the priest and the individual Christian.

After being a born-again Evangelical Protestant and Calvinist for 22 years, I converted to the Catholic Church, in part, because it is most like the Early Church and most like Christ intended. Today’s Protestant churches bear little resembance. I do have a few issues with Catholicism and am finding that I am in more agreement with the Orthodox Church, but they are extremely similar in contrast with Protestantism.

I also highly recommend Fundamentals of the Faith by Peter Kreeft (a former Protestant also). There is some excellent explanation of the faith/works issue (pages 277-281). The difficulty that Protestants and Catholics have when talking to each other about faith vs. works is partly due to semantics. When Protestants speak of saving faith, it is implied that such a faith include works. When Catholics speak of saving faith they understand it to be the mental process of believing, but they articulate the second part of putting the faith into practice–trusting, doing, living. Both agree that saving faith is never absent of a changed life.

Blessings to you.

 

[puzzleannie]

bjcros:

I I have problems with the implications of the statement that Mary was without sin. An implication that I see would be that Mary was not human. because all humans have sin. It is part of human nature. .

Adam and Eve were human and were created without sin, yet they chose sin. Mary was conceived without the stain of this original sin of Adam and Eve on her soul. Sin is not part of human nature, it is contrary to human nature which was intended by God to be without sin. Mary is the one human being who was conceived, was born and lived without sin, in otherwords, perfectly human, with a perfect human nature. Since her humanity was not damaged by original sin or actual sin, she is the mirror of what other humans should be, and can become in Christ. Jesus is not a human being, he is God and has a Divine Nature and a Human Nature, both perfect, perfectly united in the mystery called the hypostatic union.

 

[TobyLue]

bjcros

Paul writes just as in Adam all sinned so in Christ all are forgiven. Where is the scriptual evidence of “Mary was saved from sin in anticipation of Christ’s death on the Cross.”

One thing to understand regarding the way Protestants and Catholics understand the Bible. The Catholic Church interprets it on a literal sense while Protestants are literalists. They say “This is what it says because that’s that way its written” rather than what is the writer trying to tell us. If you want to be a literalist because scripture says all have sinned, then look at Romans 3:10-11. “There is not a good man left, no not one; there is not one who understands, not one who looks for God.” So by the Protestant literalist interpretation **all **men are evil because it says “not a good man left”. Everybody is a dope because it says there is “not one who understands,” and we are all doomed because it says “not one who looks for God.” So nobody, not you, not I, not anybody is looking for God. See how it works?

I would suggest to look at how the Church has been interpreting scripture since the very beginning. You will see that what interpretation the Church had before the bible was compiled up until the reformation, is the same way the CC interprets scripture today.

St. Irenaeus around 170 AD wrote about Mary, and St. Ephem in 373 AD “Blessed Virgin, immaculate and pure you are the sinless Mother of your Son, the mighty Lord of the universe. You are holy and inviolate, the hope of the hopeless and sinful; we sing your praises. We praise you as full of every grace, for you bore the God-Man. …Holy and immaculate Virgin…be our intercessor and advocate at the hour of death and judgment…you are holy in the sight of God, to Whom be honor and glory, majesty, and power forever”.

St. Athanasius calls her “Mother of God, our queen.” So the thing to understand is this; which Church has maintained the same teachings from the early beginnings of the Church that Jesus founded? Before we had the present Canon of the Bible, what did the early Church teach, and is that still taught today? If I’m not mistaken this is one of the main things that people who convert find in the CC and not in other Churches. So, I implore you, whatever you disagree with the Catholic Church, search and see if what you are told now, was taught by the Early Fathers. Do you believe in infant baptism? You will not find the exact words “baptize infants” anywhere in the bible however; the early church taught it with many ECF saying that they received it direct from the apostles. The CC still is following that same teaching. Some Protestants do and some don’t. So who is correct?
Another thing to understand, is that there were many books and gospels going around in the early church, but the Church knew that if some book or gospel contained something that was not taught by the early church it was rejected. Stop and think and do a search; you will find some 30 odd gospels floating around. Who rejected all but four and by what authority? What church had the authority to accept or reject them. Did Luther have the authority to throw out some books of the Canon that had been affirmed by the Church since around the year 370?

God Bless.

 

[Des]

From Catholic Answers Library.

But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Is sin not part of human nature ever since Adam and Eve? Paul writes just as in Adam all sinned so in Christ all are forgiven. Where is the scriptual evidence of “Mary was saved from sin in anticipation of Christ’s death on the Cross.” The only scriptual evidence anyone has ever given me this is Luke 1:28. The way they come to the conclusion of this is through the translation. The NIV leads to a different conclusion than the latin vulgate.

No, the phrase all sinned in adam (which is controversial anyway), means that we are condemned on account of Adam, not that we have sinned ourselves.

To avoid the translation issues, go to the Greek.
The NIV and NAB and … come from the Greek.

The crux of the issue is the idea that all have sinned.

Rather than repeat myself, look here:
Mary & universal corruption

 

[mayra_hart]

luke writes that mary is full of grace, highly favored.LK1:37:" for with god nothing will be impossible". she is the “woman” of gen3:15 whose enmity with satan and sin is absolute. she is the ark of the covenant(ex 25:11–21) made to hold the living Word of God; a holy tabernacle made not of the purest gold, but of the purest flesh. st. paul is emphasizing the universal aspect of sin extending to jews and gentiles alike. babies have not sinned; adam and eve before the fall had not sinned; jesus never sinned. these are some exceptions that fall outside st paul’s condemnation. Mary is another.

 

[GoodSamaritan]

**I have problems with the implications of the statement that Mary was without sin. An implication that I see would be that Mary was not human. because all humans have sin. **

So you’re saying that a 2 month old baby has personal sin? How about a mentally handicapped person? How about a baby in the womb? How about Jesus, being FULLY human? Personally, I cannot see any of these persons having personal sin. And as such, we must therefore acknowledge exceptions from ‘all humans have sin’. Now, Mary’s sinlessness is NOT implicit but rather is explicit in Scripture. Luke 1:28 is the proof. No doubt, you have an English translation which probably says something like, ‘Hail, highly favored one.’ The Greek word for this is ‘kecharitomene’, which does not mean ‘favored’, but rather, ‘SHE WHO HAS BEEN PERFECTED IN GRACE’. If you are perfected in grace, how does personal sin apply to you? Simple, it does not. The only other place in Scripture where one is called ‘filled/full of grace’ is in John 1 when Jesus is called the same thing, and we all know Jesus had no sin.

**I am not saying that Jesus had sin, because the original sin is passed down through man, not woman. Jesus wasn’t born of a man but of God. **

Maybe you should read Luke 1 again. Verse 35 says, ‘the Holy one that is BORN OF THEE’. Galatians 4:4 says Christ was ‘made of a WOMAN’.
The Scripture you use to talk about all having sinned deals with PERSONAL sin, not Original sin. Now, if an exception (more than one, as we’ve seen) exists for personal sin, why could one exist for Original sin? Considering Adam and Eve were created without original sin, it is not inconceivable that God could create another human in this state, is it? If you were Jesus, and you could create your mother any way you want, would you create her in iniquity and sin or would you create her immaculately and preserved from sin? Keep in mind that Mary did not merit this honor but rather received it in a passive way through God’s mercy. God made Mary just as Eve was before the fall.

**So he was both human and divine. Another implication would be that Christ’s death isn’t necessary. Jesus’ death was neccesary. If anyone is without sin then they don’t need atonement for sins. **

This is a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. The Church does not teach that Mary was not in need of redemption. She was saved by grace of God, just as we all are and Mary herself says this in the first chapter of Luke. Her salvation, however, included the preservation from Original sin, since from eternity, she was chosen to bare God in the flesh. It does not contradict Scripture which talks about sinless beings like Adam and Eve before the fall, angels, and Christ Himself).
Here is an analogy which many of the Early Church Fathers used to explain this. Imagine a pit in the forest. If someone falls in and is rescued by a rope which someone throws down to them, they are ‘saved’. The pit represents sin and the rescuer is God and His grace. Mary never fell into the pit but it doesn’t follow that she was not saved or not rescued from it. God’s grace alone saved her from that pit and, in turn, she cooperated with that grace by accepting God’s will to bare God on earth.

** In the garden Jesus asks God to let the cup pass from him, and if there was any other way. There wasn’t another way(but if Mary was without sin there would have been another way). Christ’s death was neccesary. In Romans it says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.**

Read that again. Jesus never asks if another way exists. He merely asks that if it was God’s will, to take that which he was about to go through from him. Your assertion seems to say that God was bound by the only manner of salvation via Jesus’ death. This is a false assumption—God is bound by nothing and used another way so that His son could come into the world and save us all. In other words, he applied the fruits of the Crucifixion to Mary (and then some) before he applied them to us. Remember, God is in eternity, outside of time and space.

Your reference of Romans is a typical Protestant error. Paul is quoting a psalm with the words, ‘all have sinned and fallen short…’. If you look at the Psalm (13), it is NOT espousing the doctrine that we are all totally depraved. It’s explaining that those who held his people captive and persecuted them and denied God’s existence were depraved, not every human being, as you claim. It’s important to see the context of Paul’s quotation. Who was persecuting the ‘new Israel’? The Jews were. And so Paul applies the quote of Psalm 13 to those who have just denied Christ (God), just as those in Psalm 13 did.

 

[GoodSamaritan]

I also have problems with the idea of penance. I see it as placeing an emphasis on works. Despite, we are not saved by works of rightousness. I understand that there is one verse that mentions penance which Catholics use. I understand that it was because of a translating error. It is from the latin vulgate.The idea that Mary was sinless comes from the latin vulgate as well. Each only occurs once that I have heard.

This is more misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. One is not saved by Penance. Penance is the reparation we make for sin. Check out what the Council of Trent says about penance:

Neither is this satisfaction so our own as not to be through Jesus Christ. For we can do nothing of ourselves; He cooperating strengthens us (Phil 4:13). Thus, man has not wherein to glory, but all our glorying is in Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17; Gal 6:14): in Whom we live; in Whom we merit (cf. Acts 17:28) . . . no Catholic ever thought that, by this kind of satisfactions on our parts, the efficacy of the merit and of the satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ is either obscured or in any way lessened.
So Catholics do not claim that penance saves us. It is only through Jesus that we are saved, period. Still, for our sins, there are penalties in this life. Biblical examples of penance include Adam and Eve’s exclusion from the Garden of Eden, the disobedient Jews in the desert wandering for 40 years, Moses forbidden to enter the Promised Land, David’s sufferings due to his murder and adultery, and sickness and death resulting from taking Communion unworthily (1 Cor 11:30-32). Jesus Christ gave His disciples (by extension, priests) the power not only to “loose” sins (i.e., forgive in God’s name), but also to “bind” (i.e., impose penances): Mt 16:19; 18:18; Jn 20:23. Check out Revelations 16:11 and you’ll see that penance is expected of all of us for our sins.
How would you reconcile your position with James 2 (it is by works that we are justified and not by faith alone’ or even Romans where Paul says God will render to every man ‘according to his works’, or Revelations 20:12 (And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works.)?

**I also disagree as most non-catholic Christians do about the Eucharist. I don’t see it as the actual body and blood of Christ. Yes, Christ says this is my body and this is my blood. However, Christ blood wasn’t poured out until Friday neither was Christ’s body broken. So even in the Last Supper they are Symbols. **

This is special pleading. John 6 is crystal clear about what Jesus promises us. If we do not eat and drink, we do not have eternal life. In John 6, he reiterates 5 times that His body and blood are true food, not symbols which he promised us. Jesus only says that the cup holds his blood and that it will be shed for all. The shedding of the blood was to come and He says so but it makes no difference whether it has been spilled yet or not. He was not referring to the Crucifixion in John 6, he was referring to the Last Supper. The Crucifixion is not where we partake of his body and blood. The Crucifixion is when the last cup of the Passover is drunk and where we are redeemed. We are not redeemed by eating his body and blood, we are redeemed by his sacrificial act on Calvary. We are given His body and blood to eat at the Last Supper. Once again, by claiming that this was symbolic, you limit God’s power and glory. To say that God cannot hold his own body in his hands or fill a cup with his own blood is to denigrate God, IMO.

 

[GoodSamaritan]

**I also don’t understand confession. When I sin against someone else, there are two I need to confess to. They are the one I sinned against and God. **

Read John 20:20-23. Jesus here breathes on the Apostles alone and commissions them as the Church. As the Father sent Him, He sent the Apostles to do what Jesus had done while on Earth—forgive sins. ‘If you forgive sins, they are forgiven’—what does this mean to you? How can the Apostles know what sin to forgive on earth if they do not know what that sin is? Seems to me that if one desired to receive forgiveness for their sins, they had to confess it to one who had authority to forgive them, no?

Read Matthew 18:15-18 and tell me who Jesus authorizes to forgive sins. Here Jesus is speaking to the apostles. Here we see in the background, sin the issue. If someone sins, take it to the brother in Christ. If the sin is a sin that persists, and the person refuses to change his ways, he must be taken to the Church. Therefore, there are people assigned by the Church who are to be listened to. The sinner must repent to the Church, and if he does not repent of his sins, his sins are in effect still bound. Whatever they (the apostles) bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever is loosed on earth is bound in heaven. The context is a dealing with sin. So this passage not only speaks to the apostles having authority to bind truth, as that which is in heaven, but more directly if sins are committed, the church on earth has authority to either bind or loose in heaven. This is just like John 20:22-23, when either the sins are remitted or not remitted.

2 Cor.5:17-20/James 5:13-16—read these. Verse 18 mentions SPECIFICALLY the ministry of reconciliation. Verses 19-20 actually say that the Apostles, and by allusion, the Church, is the avenue for reconciliation with God. In James, the context is the jobs/authority that the elders held—one being anointing of the sick and, in verse 16, hearing confessions and confessing THEIR sins to an elder.

Finally, 2 Cor.2:5-10—Verse 10 is Paul saying, ‘What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the person of Christ’. Seems to me that the Apostles were to forgive sins in the person of Christ, just like our priests do. Jesus told his apostles ‘He who hears you hears me. He who rejects you rejects me’ (Lk. 10:16). As is evidenced by the above Scriptures, Jesus gave this authority to forgive sins to the apostles and their successors. If one rejects this way, because they want to go the way of ‘me and Jesus’ alone, they are rejecting Jesus’ own commission on the forgiveness of sins. Jesus himself ordained that we get forgiveness of sins (John 20:22-23), through the priest, or successor to the apostles.