How can anybody possibly believe that "all have sinned"?

[AlegreFe]

Dogmas like Immaculate Conception and the Assumption is part of the Catholic teachings. However, we don’t have to believe in the private revelations like the Fatima message or Marian apparition.

Perhaps there in lies the confusion for mrs abbott as to why she says that we don’t have to believe.

I know we don’t have to believe in the private revelations but I do have to hold fast to the Dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. I wonder if mrs abbott knows this and agrees. Perhaps she is confused. :whacky:

 

[Mannyfit75]

Perhaps there in lies the confusion for mrs abbott as to why she says that we don’t have to believe.

I know we don’t have to believe in the private revelations but I do have to hold fast to the Dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. I wonder if mrs abbott knows this and agrees. Perhaps she is confused. :whacky:

Perhaps, she is, or that she misunderstood what the Catholic Church actually say about what we ought to believe. I know we have to believe in all of the CC teachings, especially in areas of moral and faith. The Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, and Mary remaining a Virgin is part of that ‘faith.’

 

[AlegreFe]

1.) The Holy Spirit reigns supreme on Bible interpretations.

This is true!
Blue Serenity:

If you’re not in “full communion” with God, then your interpretation is flawed.

That’s right. If the Bishops and the Pope are not in full communion with God then their interpretations are flawed. That’s why I’m glad the Holy Spirit guides our Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope! So the Pope and the Bishops are in full communion with God!!
Blue Serenity:

Plus, the Bible is so vague in some areas that multiple interpretations are allowed.

Oh, then you’re saying that the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Sacred Scripture is okay too?!

I’m sure you’re not saying that. And I can’t believe that you think it’s okay to have more than one interpretation of the Bible.

3 striving to preserve the unity of
the spirit through the bond of peace:
4 one body and one Spirit, as you
were also called to the one hope of your call;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is
over all and through all and in all.
Eph 4:3-6

You canNOT have more than one interpretation as there is only ONE Holy Spirit who is not in the least confused.
Blue Serenity:

2.) The CC had a big part in composing the Bible. I am forever grateful to the ECFs.

A “big part?” The Catholic Church put the Bible together. The ECFs are Catholic!
Blue Serenity:

3.) Where the heck did THAT come from?

How would you know that IVF and cloning are not okay if the Church did not tell you that it was immoral?
Blue Serenity:

I believe the Bible is the only infallible source we have for instruction, see 2 Tim.3:14-17.

See post 344, 345 & 346. Don’t worry, there are Scripture passages in those posts.
Blue Serenity:

We use other sources, like the ECFs.

If you indeed use the ECFs then you would be Catholic. Have you read ALL the ECFs? I doubt that. If you did, you would be Catholic as the beliefs of the ECFs are indeed Catholic!
Blue Serenity:

We recognize the importance of the early CC, as it was what we believe today. But due to many corrupt popes and changes in the CC, we don’t acknowledge anything the CC does after 400 A.D…

:whacky: The Catholic Church never once changed any teachings that were brought down by the Apostles and Jesus Himself. Not that the Church doesn’t want to change any of Christ’s teachings but that she cannot change any of Christ’s teachings.

If you indeed believe that the Catholic Church was once the True Church that Christ founded then you would believe that the Catholic Church today still stands and still holds fast to the Sacred Traditions as taught by the Apostles.

You don’t believe Jesus when He said that the gates of Hell shall not prevail?! If you say that the “early” CC was true, then you would believe that it still stands today because of what Jesus said. Are you now calling Jesus a liar?!

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of the netherworld
shall not prevail against it.
Mt 16:18

 

[AlegreFe]

A knife that cuts both ways.

You imply that one should have a final arbiter other than oneself; even in the Catholic case, the final arbiter is the individual Catholic, though he claims the CC.

You have decided that the CC is correct based upon your own private interpretation; therefore, according to your reasoning in which a protestant does the same thing, you have no way of knowing whether or not you are correct.

If a non-Catholic is in a sinking boat because of his private interpretation, then you are right alongside him.

Grab a lifejacket!

You’re half backwards on this one!

Not one time has any Catholic said that they believe what the Catholic Church says because she agrees with our private interpretation. :whacky: We cannot have private interpretations. That’s Scriptural!

If I don’t agree with something the Catholic Church teaches (which is not so, but for sake of conversation) I would still have to obey the Catholic Church. I then would take it upon myself to study why the Catholic Church teaches a certain doctrine. If I still don’t understand, it’s okay, as long as I obey and have Faith in the Catholic Church as I do in Jesus Christ. Since I know that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church and that Jesus built His Church on Peter the Rock, then I am to Trust in Jesus Christ and Believe everything that Jesus has said and taught!

 

[JoeyWarren]

You have got to be kidding. I just checked a CATHOLIC bible that says “IT”. So much for your argument.

Which Catholic Bible?

Douay Rheims:

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Today’s English Version with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha: (Only has Imprimatur)

I will make you and the woman hate each other; her offspring and yours will always be enemies. **Her **offspring will chrush your head, and you will bite her offsprings heel.

New American Bible:

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

Continuity “you” showing the subjects of the discussion is the serpent and the woman.

I understand there are some Protestant Bibles out there that claim to be the Catholic version. Those Bibles are only the Catholic version by their inclusion of the Deuterocanonicals.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originallly posted by an EOC prior the crash(glad I saved it to a word file)

Catholics worship Mary
No We don’t
Yes you do
No We don’t
Yes you do…etc.

That accusation can be easily flattened.

Catholics love Mary as a human being, as a mother. They feel quite free to “call her blessed” (Luke 1.48) with a “loud voice,” (Luke 1.41), just as the Holy Spirit instructed (same passage).

For those who say Mary is dead and can’t hear it, I have some words straight from the mouth of Jesus–“God is God of the Living, NOT of the Dead.”

If Moses and Elijah put in an appearance on Mount Tabor and chatted with Jesus about his ministry (as Scripture records), then I’d highly posit that these men were “in the know” through God’s power and not “dead.” Moreover, if the martyrs beneath the altar in the book of Revelation (6:9-11) are appealing to God about things going on across the earth and asking God when he was going to take action, then I’d highly posit that they are NOT dead, either.

Really: to “worship” Mary would require that the intellect makes a firm decision to believe that Mary is Divine or that she created the world. Even the most uneducated catholic, I believe, does not make that kind of intellectual decision. Thus, Mary cannot be worshipped unless a person claims, with full intellect, that she is divine. Case closed.

Otherwise, Mary is loved and appreciated with the same sort of devotion one renders to one’s own beloved mother, for example. Jesus doesn’t get “jealous” or “green with envy” when we “love” our own mothers. There’s no passage in Scripture that forbids us to “love” his own Mother, who was explicitly given to christians as their own mother, as well.

Protestants often make the grave mistake of treating Mary as if she were a mere “vessel” – which is the same thing as saying she was a Petrie Dish that God used and threw away. They also often make the mistake of believing that God “woke-up” one day, yawned, decided it was time to “send his Son to earth,” and then started looking, at random, for the proper “gal” to serve as a temporary incubator.

It is written that God knows each of us from the very moment of conception…“from the womb”…and that God has a plan and mission for each of us and prepares us according to our free will and cooperation with his grace.

God didn’t just “pick” Mary out of some Galileean “line-up.” She was destined, prepared, and graced to be the MOTHER of the Divine Word. Not a temporary “holding-tank.” She gave human nature to the utter, omnipotent “DIVINE,” according to her free will, faith, and cooperation–even to the point of possibly losing her own life, her husband, and her entire world.

Mary’s faith was the ‘contact point’ for the greatest event that ever happened in this universe or any other, the greatest miracle in that thing we humans call “time”-- the Divine becomes part of matter, part of the material “existence.” It gives me the shivers simply to think about the astonishing, mind-blowing reality of it. And Protestant literalists so often toss Mary aside the way they foolishly think that God “tossed her aside” after demanding temporary use of her reproductive organs.

She raised him. Educated him. Nursed him. Shared her own faith with him. LIVED with Jesus for 30 years as mother first in faith, and THEN in flesh. Her grace (given lavishly by God: Luke 1.28) and her free response to that saving grace, made it possible for all of humanity (and creation) to be redeemed by Jesus. It was the greatest “collaborative effort” that could ever possibly be effected or even imagined, through all ages, all times, all places, all possibilities.

Also, if Protestants want to bully Catholics for having sacred artwork, then they had best be prepared to throw their Bibles into the garbage cans. Why? Because every single letter, on every single page, in every single Bible in the world, is an IMAGE. It’s created “material” of ink, made by human beings. Every letter. Do these letter-images convey truth and inspiration? Yes. Just as sacred art does. Protestants should also be ready to throw-out all of their family photo-albums and cherished “films.” All are images.

But some Protestants have a valid point about excessive displays of “reverence” paid by Catholics to statues, pictures, et al. I would personally prefer to see sacred Christian art “considered” rather than “fussed-over.” Statuary and icons may be cherished and revered as material things representing and conveying truths that inspire and teach us, or lift our minds to the Divine (just as the ink letter-IMAGES of scripture do), but I find no point in dressing statues in gowns or jewels and grovelling before them. Christian art can be properly revered without such excess.

We need to pray for vocations, but we need to inspire vocations, too–in proper candidates. This takes a community–from the family to the entire parish.

 

[JoeyWarren]

IMHO opinion this is how people like Sanduskey and Apophasis and Believers think about Mary:

Protestants often make the grave mistake of treating Mary as if she were a mere “vessel” – which is the same thing as saying she was a Petrie Dish that God used and threw away. They also often make the mistake of believing that God “woke-up” one day, yawned, decided it was time to “send his Son to earth,” and then started looking, at random, for the proper “gal” to serve as a temporary incubator.

And IMHO I think this as well:

And Protestant literalists so often toss Mary aside the way they foolishly think that God “tossed her aside” after demanding temporary use of her reproductive organs.

 

[AlegreFe]

And it is the opinion of many others as well.

It doesn’t matter how many people hold the same opinion, it is still just that, an opinion.

sandusky:

Which makes my point; namely, I am not arguing about the phrase full of grace, but what that phrase means.

The phrase is a Perfect passive participle meaning “one who has been perfected in grace” or “one who has been made full of grace.” Mary has received her grace from God who went ahead in time and got the grace from Christ’s Passion and death on the cross. It is a past action that was done to her. She did not attain the grace by her own powers as she has no power to do so, but God did it for her because it was fitting.

sandusky:

In your post 293, and elsewhere, you offer lexical definitions of charitoo, and all pertain to grace, but what is absent is any lexical definition concerning an immaculate conception, or sinlessness.

The Immaculate Conception is a Church teaching that doesn’t necessarily get the full reasoning only from Luke 1:28. It’s just part of the teachings that have been guided by the Holy Spirit. The fact that Mary is sinless can certainly be taken from Luke 1:28.

sandusky:

You are redefining grace to mean sinless.

But being perfected or made full of grace DOES mean to be sinless. You can’t be FULL of Grace and yet still fit sin in there somewhere. The cup is already full, nothing more can fit much less sin!

sandusky:

If that is the case in Lk 1:28, then it must also be the case in Eph 1:6.

Not so. The Greek words used for “grace” in either one of those verses are different words. They are words that have different parts of speech too. Besides, a phrase is used in Luke which is “full of grace” where only one word, “grace” is used in Ephesians. The word in Ephesians is a noun where the phrase from Luke is a verb and to be more precise it’s a perfect passive participle.
Do these two words look the same to you?

• cavritoß (used in Ephesians)
• kecaritwmevnh (used in Luke)

The phrase, which is the “name” given to Mary by God is never used in Scripture other than for Mary in Luke 1:28. You can search the whole bible no matter what version, and you won’t find it anywhere but in Luke 1:28 to describe what happened to Mary by God.

 

[AlegreFe]

You have got to be kidding. I just checked a CATHOLIC bible that says “IT”. So much for your argument.

Which Catholic Bible is it? I checked all the Catholic versions that I have plus two Protestant bibles that I have and not one of them say “it.”

Are you sure the one you checked is a Catholic one? Perhaps you think it is because it might have the Deuterocanonicals books included in; it would probably say Apocrypha if it is a Protestant bible.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Which Catholic Bible is it? I checked all the Catholic versions that I have plus two Protestant bibles that I have and not one of them say “it.”

Are you sure the one you checked is a Catholic one? Perhaps you think it is because it might have the Deuterocanonicals books included in; it would probably say Apocrypha if it is a Protestant bible.

That was my underlying question when I did post #360

 

[AlegreFe]

This isn’t that complicated.

Think of it this way, are we all not born into original sin? Yes! So until our baptism we are in sin. After the sacrament of baptism all sin is removed from us, but only through Christ’s sacrifice. So all have sinned though Adam.

Yes we are all born with original sin but not all actually commit personal sin, especially not babies. And I agree with you that if babies are not baptized they still have the stain of original sin and that is why it is very important to baptize babies.

 

[AlegreFe]

Good question, Beelzebub is not Satan, but second in command. As far as blaspheming the Holy Spirit, a better answer would be to think of the Church. Jesus handed authority to the Church through Peter, Matthew 16:

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

**So to Blaspheme the Holy Spirit today is to Blaspheme the Church, that is what you need to know. Respect and obey Church dogma, for if you call it from Satan as many do today, and call the RCC a cult, they blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

But remember, Jesus also said “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”. So if we do not forgive others, neither are we forgiven, and is an unforgivable sin as well.**

emphasis added

Wow, I love your post here! This is definitely worth quoting to repeat it in this thread!

 

[AlegreFe]

Sorry folks

That last post of mine ended up on the wrong thread.

Did you repost it here? If not, can you link us to that post?

 

[apophasis]

Amazing. All this time I was looking for God in Church and the Bible and all I really had to do was go to Disneyworld and find the animatronic God. Thanks for clearing that up.

Finally I know that it’s not God in charge, because he’s all trussed up by a bunch of liliputian restraints and could not have done anything any different than what has been done, and can’t change what will happen. It’s the restraints that are really in charge!

In your view and it’s logical extension, the statement that “God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son” has become “God so loved the world that he was forced by the exterior constraints placed upon Him to sacrifice His Son. He had no choice in the matter, luckily for us. Phew! Glad God is all trussed up!”

What an impoverished view of the Lord!

What a shallow view of sin and God’s holiness!

 

[apophasis]

IMHO opinion this is how people like Sanduskey and Apophasis and Believers think about Mary:

And IMHO I think this as well:

Actually we think quite highly of her. So highly that we refuse to disrepect her by stating anything false about her - no matter how good or bad that might be.:tiphat:

 

[AlegreFe]

Actually we think quite highly of her. So highly that we refuse to disrepect her by stating anything false about her

If you think “so highly” of Mary then you should pray the Rosary. When you pray the Rosary, you pray Jesus Christ!

Pray the Rosary!
After praying the opening prayers, click on one of the Mysteries; Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious or Luminious.

Joyful Mysteries

1. 
   *]The Annunciation
   *]The Visitation
   *]The Nativity
   *]The Presentation
   *]The Finding in the Temple
   
   Sorrowful Mysteries
   1. 
      *]The Agony in the Garden
      *]The Scourging at the Pillar
      *]The Crowning with Thorns
      *]The Carrying of the Cross
      *]The Crucifixion
      
      Glorious Mysteries
      1. 
         *]The Resurrection of Our Lord
         *]The Ascension of our Lord
         *]The Descent of the Holy Spirit
         *]The Assumption of our Lady
         *]The Coronation
         
         Luminious Mysteries (my favorite!)
         1. 
            *]The Baptism of our Lord
            *]The Wedding at Cana
            *]The Proclamation of the Kingdom
            *]The Transfiguration
            *]The Institution of the Eucharist
            
            
            apophasis:
            

            no matter how good or bad that might be.:tiphat:

            Mary has been perfected in grace by God so there is nothing bad about her!

 

[eliasaph99]

What a shallow view of sin and God’s holiness!

You’re quite wrong. Your view is shallow and limits God. It puts the cart before the horse. Your view claims that God is constrained to act in certain ways and cannot ever act in different ways. This is false.

Your view puts man above God, forcing God to act on man’s behalf. This is a false view. God is not forced by anything, nor constrained by anything to do anything for man or mankind.
The Lord God is constrained by nothing.

You claim that God had to send His Son to save us. But this is not true. I don’t pretend to know what other methodology God could have used, as I do not know the mind of God. However, I do know that your view removes the glorious truth of the Gospel message.

More importantly perhaps, I don’t claim that God had to save us at all. He could have left us as we were, mired in sin.

The message of the Gospel is not that God had to send Christ to save us, but rather that God willingly chose to send His Son because of His Love for us and because of His great Mercy and His great Patience.

Your view puts man above God, forcing God to act on man’s behalf. This is a false view. God is not forced by anything, nor constrained by anything to act on behalf of mankind.

I think that you have built up a little logical bubble that makes you feel comfortable. Unfortunately, although your logic works in your bubble, it is false outside the bubble. Outside of the bubble is reality. Perhaps you should find a needle and come join the rest of us in the real world.

 

[AlegreFe]

You’re quite wrong. Your view is shallow and limits God. It puts the cart before the horse. Your view claims that God is constrained to act in certain ways and cannot ever act in different ways. This is false.

Your view puts man above God, forcing God to act on man’s behalf. This is a false view. God is not forced by anything, nor constrained by anything to do anything for man or mankind.
The Lord God is constrained by nothing.

You claim that God had to send His Son to save us. But this is not true. I don’t pretend to know what other methodology God could have used, as I do not know the mind of God. However, I do know that your view removes the glorious truth of the Gospel message.

More importantly perhaps, I don’t claim that God had to save us at all. He could have left us as we were, mired in sin.

The message of the Gospel is not that God had to send Christ to save us, but rather that God willingly chose to send His Son because of His Love for us and because of His great Mercy and His great Patience.

Your view puts man above God, forcing God to act on man’s behalf. This is a false view. God is not forced by anything, nor constrained by anything to act on behalf of mankind.

I think that you have built up a little logical bubble that makes you feel comfortable. Unfortunately, although your logic works in your bubble, it is false outside the bubble. Outside of the bubble is reality. Perhaps you should find a needle and come join the rest of us in the real world.

:clapping:

 

[apophasis]

Mary has been perfected in grace by God so there is nothing bad about her!

Mary was saved by grace, and certainly the Scriptures say nothing bad about her. But men say many false things about her, and that’s certainly disrespectful.

 

[apophasis]

You’re quite wrong. Your view is shallow and limits God. It puts the cart before the horse. Your view claims that God is constrained to act in certain ways and cannot ever act in different ways. This is false.

Your view puts man above God, forcing God to act on man’s behalf. This is a false view. God is not forced by anything, nor constrained by anything to do anything for man or mankind.
The Lord God is constrained by nothing.

You claim that God had to send His Son to save us. But this is not true. I don’t pretend to know what other methodology God could have used, as I do not know the mind of God. However, I do know that your view removes the glorious truth of the Gospel message.

More importantly perhaps, I don’t claim that God had to save us at all. He could have left us as we were, mired in sin.

The message of the Gospel is not that God had to send Christ to save us, but rather that God willingly chose to send His Son because of His Love for us and because of His great Mercy and His great Patience.

Your view puts man above God, forcing God to act on man’s behalf. This is a false view. God is not forced by anything, nor constrained by anything to act on behalf of mankind.

I think that you have built up a little logical bubble that makes you feel comfortable. Unfortunately, although your logic works in your bubble, it is false outside the bubble. Outside of the bubble is reality. Perhaps you should find a needle and come join the rest of us in the real world.

Actually it was wholly God’s choice to send the Son, not man’s. And the Son willinging complied. Desperate matters (the destruction of mankind) called for a desperate (but loving) action (the blood sacrifice of the Son) on the part of God.1John 4:9-10 “By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son {to be} the propitiation (complete satisfaction for the offended holiness of God) for our sins” (emphasis mine).Nope, I see no forcing of God’s hand by man here. Only God knew what it would take to redeem mankind and reconcile men to Himself because of sin. And this was demonstrated out in history and manifested publicly at the cross of Christ.

There was no other way but to send the Son. And so to teach or imply any other way (such as works) is nothing less than blasphemy.