Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[Marybeloved]

For those who, following the above reference to “Scripture” now want to see historical or academic reference to authors, dates and the like of those who wrote about Jesus and His message - the Gospel or the Word - … you are missing the point. No disrespect. If you ***believe ***the Holy Spirit inspired the **writing **of true accounts of the message of Jesus Christ and His Kingdom (not false ones as was the case with many stories and writings that went around at the time), and if you ***believe *** the Holy Spirit also inspired the **binding **of these true accounts, prophesies, letters, etc. into the Bible, then the person’s name or the date or the qualification or the marital status or colour of hair or favourite Apostle or meal they had for breakfast is completely irrelevant because the source of the initiative was the Holy Spirit. It is something you have to believe.

We believe it! And the Holy Spirit was and is the source of the initiative! And that’s exactly why we’re Catholic and not followers of man-made doctrines called sola- scriptura or members of man-made “churches”!

Don’t believe it? That’s your choice. I’m all fine with that. Have fun dissecting history while missing the Story within it.

This is just cheap- If your beliefs are true, they’re true, and would stand up to any factual inquiries:shrug:- If they’re not, they won’t!

Peace!

 

[mdstanzel]

Do you think I can talk you into rewriting this with proper punctuation, spelling and double space. Also, include a carbon copy in triplicates.

all have fallen short of the Glory of God means that God did not create gods, it doesnt mean that God has no faithful and sinless followers…ask protestants then if all have sinned and if that interprets including Mary why is it that the Holy Spirit overshadowed her while she became pregnant, why have they found it impossible to be in God’s presence for a duration of atleast nine months? ask them that…and then tell them that what is impossible for man is Possible With God and at her first appearance in the bible as we know her to interact with Faith, it is said “God is With you” ask protestants why they seek to be closer to God to have more religious experiences and why one experience they can not hold themselves for nine months even after they are baptised? And do they not know that there are those in that most feared book revalations Blameless? and do they not know that God made adam and eve sinless and that adam and eve chose to sin? do they assume that it is impossible for God to make a human bieng able to not sin? so what if a woman, not a man, not mankind but human hearing the word of the Lord and loving it, given in marriage at the time of her first menstrual period, at a tender age that they do not even give thier children up to ability to chose sin over righteaousness, ask them then why they would deny the Power of God to Provide His SON a Mother fit for the King of KIngs and Lord of Lords, Fit for the Son of God? a temple made and kept pure for God’s sake. would not Mary laugh at those who assume her to have been a sinner? She is the Standard for Women of God, for Children of God, Ask them is the earth your mother? because you have a body of flesh? and dont forget to tell them that Jesus asked a woman who did sin and knew it and all were ready to stone her, “GO and Sin no more” how do they think if they can not stay in the presence of God for more than a little while so that they seek it more than to do God’s will no matter what, if they are so abiding in Grace how can they accuse His Mother Mary The Virgin prophesied of before she was born, How can they Judge Her is it that they have no mother? is it that they themselves have not found God in a way that makes impossible possible as He himselves told them? are they so rich in Knowledge that they Lack Wisdom that the Truth is that God does as he Pleases, and it Pleased Him to Bring His Son into the World in a Virgin, Virgin Blameless, to a sinful world that wont let God do the impossible through them and allow God to help them who had sin and know it, “go and sin no more” they say impossible they know enough they think they believe enough, But the mother of this world Jesus came into is not Mary, the mother of this world is EVE who was prophesied first that his seed shall bruise his heel, her seed shall crush his head, well then eve was made without sin and chose it, Our Mother in Christ was made without sin and Chose rightousness and DID BEAR THAT RIGHTEOUSNESS INTO THE WORLD. so they may know Christ enough to be saved by His Blood, but they have no faith, they can not move the mountain that keeps them from knowing Grace as Satifaction. and look at me. Im not catholic nor will i join those who are not knowing That God Is Not BORN IN A LIE. and i may have salvation but even me i cant go sin no more, and i was raised knowing how little they know, thank God they hold on to His robes but they refuse to Wear His Rightouesness, always protestant of every kind do not stay in His Grace but come in and out of it, there grace is that Jesus saved them, but they dont have the what it takes to feed his sheep, cause they wander in and out of church unfulfilled complaining of not bieng fed. They refuse to give God Glory in His People he Used as a Standard, they dont know how to grow and be satisfied in Him, cause they arent taught enough of the truth to Wear the clothes he offers them, they take a little and they forget and they call their children lost and herretic who Know that some people do not sin. SOme Know and Stay in God. even if I havent that much faith doesnt mean God cant do it. the people who dont know havent enough faith to believe God over their own voice and Go and sin no more, so they cant know Mary like we do. they dont even know what God can do for them permantly. God does not make a lie, God is not the author of confussion, mankind is. Mary is not mankind. the is the one whose seed crushed his head. i didnt always know this, i wasnt raised to know this, it was warned of not to believe it, but even they say if Mary can not be in Heaven who can be? and i could have gone my whole life and not known it. but i prayed and read the bible and waited to see what God says. who will say God did not tell me Mary is innocent and never sinned? not God. Not people who can not bear to see that God chose Mary over them. and then saved them. they have not enough faith to trust God to tell him. its a miracle i did.

 

[Good_Fella]

We differ over what “the law of liberty” means. You refer to it as the law of Moses. I refer to it as the word of God spoken through the Apostles. See what James says prior to his reference to “the law of liberty”:

“Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness… this one will be blessed in what he does.” (James 1:21-25).

I see the law of liberty as the law of love and freedom that is written in every person’s heart, whether he be Jew or Gentile: the law of Christ.

Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek. But glory, and honour, and peace to every one who worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For there is no respect of persons with God. For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Romans 2, 9-16

On the day of judgment God will show no partiality between the Jews and the Gentiles. It makes no difference whether the latter have received the written law of Moses. All the righteous will stand justified before God and be rewarded for their good works, and all the wicked will be condemned and punished for their bad works for having violated the spirit of the law. Not having the written law does not excuse any of the wicked from being punished, for they have acted against reason and conscience. But Jews will be treated more severely for having transgressed against the known law. When God judges us by our deeds, he looks at the righteousness inherent within us in conformity with that of his Son in his sacred humanity. God does not take into account the external and alien righteousness of Christ, as if the Holy Spirit were too powerless to transform our human nature by his grace. Jesus speaks of righteousness as something that can intrinsically belong to us to our merit. God credits us as righteous after he has made us so with the help of his grace.* “I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven”* (Mt 5:20). However, our justification does not rest on an interior disposition alone. In order for our justification to be complete, we must practise righteousness in accord with the spirit of the law. “But take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father. When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your almsgiving may be a secret. And your heavenly Father who sees in secret will repay you” (Mt 6:1-4).

James likens the following of the “word” with looking into “a mirror” and again with looking into the "perfect law of liberty

". My reading of it is that the perfect law of liberty is the word which the Apostles had been speaking to the churches. That “word” was the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, not the Law of Moses. The law of liberty is the Gospel. The point is that there is no following of the Law of Moses - neither for salvation nor for moral rectitude - but a following of the law of liberty instead.

St. Paul believed that God looks to our obedience to the law as a ‘measure’ of faith in him and a requirement of salvation. The law still functions in its proper relation to faith. This is the spirit of the law - the law of Christ - which includes good works (as opposed to legal works) and righteous living in a spirit of charity in God’s grace through faith (Rom 2:25,27; 3:31).

Not unlike the prophets before him, Jesus saw ethics as the core of Mosaic law (Mt 7:12). And our Lord never intended to lead the Jews away from observing the moral precepts of the law. (Mt 5:17). What troubled Jesus was the Judaism of his time. The ethical regard of the rabbis was being undermined by an over emphasis on ritual, prohibitions, and the fine points of the law. The ethical values upheld by the prophets were compromised for rules and restrictions which regulated the smallest details of daily life at the expense of human dignity. Such rigid legalism distorted the true meaning of the law and values of the prophets. Obeying the rules for their sake alone amounted to nothing more than a demonstration of righteous behaviour and did not penetrate to the person’s interior being or lead to a moral transformation. Jesus was not concerned about the law itself, but with an inward change of heart (Mk 7:21-23). Our Lord’s first priority in his public ministry was to restore the intimate, personal connection between God and his chosen people and to preach love and compassion for one’s neighbour (Mt 22:35-40). Hence, to Jesus the spirit of Mosaic law was more important than the legal observance of it according to the letter.

PAX :heaven:

 

[gerhardc]

Most non-Catholic sects declare that the Holy Spirit is “teaching” them the truth. However, there can be only one truth. Since the advent of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation of Scripture, how can the Holy Spirit be in each of the thousands of sects, teaching all of them opposing viewpoints? It is to be noted that all of the following denominations teach from the same Bible, so why the differences in teaching?

1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?
2. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
3. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh-Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
4. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?
5. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, "once saved always saved", and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
6. How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
7. How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD? [home.inreach.com/bstanley/reform.htm](http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/reform.htm)

You note an impotant point, like others here have done already. Let me say a few things about the specific examples youvused though: 1) main stream Protestants probably don’t consider 7th Day Adventists, JW’s, Mormons and the like as legitimate Christian movements or churches (not my view neccessarily), and 2) thinking that a critique of the RCC is done in defense of Protestants is a mistake. Its not about Protestants vs. Catholics. Never has been (for me at least), though the problems I see in the Catholic approach are probably greater than that of Protestants.

Further to the above, Mormons are seen as an illigitimate break away momement by most Protestants, who are seen as an illigitimate break away movement by many Catholics, who are seen as an illigitimate break away movement by some in the Orthodox church, who are seen as an illigitimate break away movement by virtually all Jews, who are seen as an obstinate people by God (I am over-simplifying to make a point). Who is right? God is right. These are all illigitimate break away movements because each has something in their history that proves that they weren’t listining to Him, whether it be killing Jews or killing Muslims in Crusades or stealing money or whatever. So, whivh church is God’s representative on earth then? That depends on your definition of church. If your def. is that it is a system of officials and lay that work their way up the hierarchy, that owns property and exerts political influence, then you will want to pick any one of the above movements and convince yourself that it was the right decision. You’ll find plenty of reason based on the “good” things they have done. And you’ll get plenty of affirmation from officials in that movement. But, if your def. is that church is simply a grouping of true believers, following the teachings and the message of Christ without having additional protocols and rules and symbols and rituals and practices and layers of officials and clothing and jewelery and gestures and properties, then you will believe that neither of the above movements represent the church of Christ. You will also know that Christ’s followers are known by their heart only, not by having a membership card or partner certificate or an academic qualification.

I belong to the latter group. For me there are true believers in the RCC, Orthodox church, Menonites, Charismatics, … the list goes on. For me the church constitute not those who piously follow the practices, traditions, rituals and promptiongs of their respective movements but those who are personally led by the Spirit of God and those who are obedient to the teaching of Jesus only.

I base that belief on, amongst others, these two passages, which say absolutely nothing about getting the nod from the local Pastor or Priest or Minister: (Romans 8:13-17) - For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together."

And;
(1 John 2:3-6) - Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked."

Hope that helps to explain my view to several questions in that regard.

The Holy Spirit, not a religious movements, is my appointed Helper. He is the one whom the Father sent. I shall not substitute Him in favour of another human being. He is my helper to help me interpret Scripture. No doubt I will not hear Him speak (often) and no doubt I will not (want to) listen at other times. But that does not make 1 John 2:27 invalid. In fact, it is my encouragement to listen more carefully: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God”, which, naturally includes the reading of Scripture as well.

 

[gerhardc]

Hey gerhardc…

I agree…

I’ll just ask one more time so as not to derail the thread. You said:

Again, I have no idea how a collection of books,we Christians call the inerrant word of God, can interpret itself??? People interpret those books and people take out of it that which they need in order for them to grow closer to God, and quite often what people take from the bible gives way to doctrinal division.

In your opinion, did Jesus leave His church with an authoritative interpreter of His inerrant word (regarding revealed truth) - so that people like you and I, can know with certainty, the truth regarding things like the Eucharist, just to name one of many doctrines with conflicting interpretations in the protestant sphere?

Hi Joe,
I hope I have answered your question in #511. My representative on earth to guide me in interpreting Scripture is the Helper whom the Father sent - the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Spirit is here with believers who have received Him. Paul also calls Him proof or “a downpayment” of our salvation. I shall not substitute Him, not even with a man or group of men who claim they have authority through succession, especially if that ‘authority’ has found to abuse in the past. Godly never exploits or abuses. If it does it simply shows it is not true authority. Note that the exploitation of people or abuse of so-called is not the same as simply sinning as, for instance, Peter sinned and Paul admonishing him (an assumed ‘higher authority’ than that of Paul according to RCC tradition anayway, which seems contratictive in terms).

As for my and everybody else’s errors in hearing Him, that does not illigitimise His teaching. It only emphasises how far we have to go still in hearing Him as clearly as Moses did, or John or Paul.

 

[gerhardc]

I suppose, Gerhard, that we have dumped the Donkey analogy now, . Bit too inconvenient, now that you’ve encountered undeniable facts about the man-made lie called “sola-scriptura” . Was it you or Ginger who, when we were discussing Mary’s sinlessness provided evidence of God using sinners to do his work?- A murdering adulterer called King David, And an idolater obsessed with women called King Solomon? I believe there were others or there are others- But I know that you get the point.

You tell us of Our Lord’s fruits. I wonder how anyone can take an unbiased look at History and then claim to separate Jesus’ fruits from the Church??. Just what were these fruits apart from the Church that grew out of the upper room on Pentecost? Jesus left exactly 120 followers- It’s ridiculous to separate what these followers did and Jesus- You would end up crediting Our Lord with no fruits at all- How is that a good thing for you?

You tell us of evil fruit from the Church- The Church from the beginning has had wolves in Sheep skin- Don’t you read your Bible, Gerhard? Don’t you notice the part when Jesus warned of these ravenous wolves? Don’t you see the part where the apostles acknowledge that among them are those who have gone out from them but are not of them? Are we now to believe that the Church of the apostles was not guided by God for that fact? Are we to believe that Israel was not guided by YHWH when David sinned? Are we to believe that David was not chosen by YHWH because he was a sinner?

You obviously have a very biased way of seeing things, that’s why you see none of the amazing things that the Church is responsible for! You have never taken a look at the Saints and their impact in society, have you? The Church’s unparalleled influence in education and Charity in Human History in obedience to Christs’ call to serve our neighbor- That’s nothing to you at all, is it? You tell us of the abuse scandals and nothing of The sisters of Charity founded by Mother Teresa and what they are doing, do you? You say nothing of John Paul II’s and Catholicism’s role in bringing an unbloody end to Communism, do you? You say nothing of the fact that the Israeli Jews have credited the Catholic Church of singly doing the most out of anyone in the World, more than any Government to save many Jews from Hitler’s Holocaust? Nothing of the Church in ending slavery by forbidding it long before any protestants thought to, or of the church’s fight for the poor in most societies in which it has an influence? Who in the Christian world still proclaims the truth of the morals of God and has not caved in to cultural pressure? Who first rejected Abortion before the protestants joined the fight?

Let’s take a look at an equally biased view at the fruits of sola scriptura- It brought unprecedented division in the Christian World than anything else before it. It caused bloody religious wars- and protestants did some nasty nasty stuff that the modern day ones seem oblivious about! They burned thousands of “witches” and other such accused- even in America! Again, something modern Protestants never seem aware of. When their churches were busy condoning the slavery of Africans, the Catholic Church issued a papal bull against it! And now it has given birth to a new kind of protestantism called liberalism, secular humanism and the sexual revolution- All from the idea that- No body can tell me what to do but me. Does that look like a pretty thing to you? It’s because it’s biased- like your purported attempt at judging the Church! You should also know- as you throw the recent scandals in our faces-that Protestants have not been spared the evil of sex-abuse in Church- not even to a lesser extent than the Church- That’s researched facts, by the way. They’re just not the enemy of the World that the Catholic Church is seen us and don’t suffer as hateful and as many targeted attacks as she- Why is that, I wonder?

Peace!

Hi Mary,
I have no reason to trust anything but the Bible and cannot subscribe to traditions which were influenced by non-Christian political leaders such as Constantine (who was baptised a Christian on his death bed only) as well as subsequent Emperors. You give examples of good which the RCC has done. I believe that in the case of the RCC and the many other religious movements, ‘good’ is the enemy of ‘excellent’. Further, I hope I have answered your points in #511 and #512. Sorry I can’t get to it all.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger,

… the psalter is “a private devotion” by St. Bonaventure- …

Thank you for taking the time to explain, so others could hear your belief. I realize that is the way Catholic explain the psalters, but to a Protestant it looks like Catholics have taken the praise intended for God and given it to another. And while Catholics are not required to pray these prayers, they are not discouraged and in some cases, encouraged to recite these prayers.

Psalms of David 148 &The Psalters of Mary 148:

1
Hallelujah! 1 Praise the LORD from the heavens; give praise in the heights.
Let us praise Our Lady in the heavens: glorify her in the highest.

2
Praise him, all you angels; give praise, all you hosts.
Praise her, all ye men and beasts: birds of the air, and fishes of the sea.

3
Praise him, sun and moon; give praise, all shining stars.
Praise her, sun and moon: stars, and the orbs of the planets.

4
Praise him, highest heavens, you waters above the heavens.
Praise her, Cherubim and Seraphim: thrones and dominations and powers.

5
Let them all praise the LORD’S name; for the LORD
Praise her, all ye legions of angels: praise her all order of heavenly
dwellers.

Preserve me, O Lord, for I have put my trust in thee.
Preserve me, O Lady, for I have hoped in thee:

25
Judge me, O Lord, for I have walked in my innocence:
Judge me, O Lady, for I have departed from my innocence:

53
Save me, O God, by thy name, and judge me in thy strength
O Lady, save me in thy name: and deliver me from my injustices.

These words prayed to God as worship are nearly identical to the words many Catholics pray to Mary, so it is difficult for us to understand how they are worship to God, but only “veneration” to Mary.

To a Protestant, it seems wrong to take the words someone wrote to God, and use them to “honor” someone else.

Thanks again, but I suppose this is one of those things that cannot be resolved between Catholics and Protestants.

Ginger

 

[Good_Fella]

Romans 10:9-10 says it does. James 1:21-25, which I quoted above, tells you what that faith looks like - it does good works. The believer now wants to do good works because he is one with the *character *of Jesus (note, not one with the person of Jesus).

And so you believe Mary was a sinner like every other human being, since nobody can be one with the person of Jesus in his humanity notwithstanding the grace of God. Anyway, Paul does not reject good works as necessary for salvation. He writes: “I seek the fruit which increases to your credit” (Phil 4:17). By fruit, Paul means good works done in grace, which meritoriously increase our justification as we grow in holiness. But our works and merit are borne from God’s unmerited mercy through the merits of Christ, who is the source of all merit and whom we must emulate to be saved with the help of of God’s actual graces. After we are gratuitously forgiven and justified by no preceding merit of ours in Baptism (Rom 3:22-24; 13:6), we must persevere in good works for the increase of grace and justification in order to attain the hope of salvation.* “So then, my dear friends, work for your salvation ‘in fear and trembling’. It is God for his living purpose, who puts both the will and the action into you”* (Phil 2:12-13). Paul teaches that we are justified by faith - but not by faith alone; James teaches that we are justified by works - but not by works alone. There is no contradiction between the two apostles. The only difference between the two is the sense of what they mean by justification (dikaiow) given the contexts of their letters. Paul uses the word to mean a change from being bad in God’s sight (the state of sin) to being good (in a state of grace). James uses the word to mean staying good. He is addressing the Jewish Christians of Palestine and the Diaspora in his letter. However, as we have seen, Paul is also concerned about the individual’s increase in justification and righteousness.

Paul certainly thought of justification as an on-going process and progressive. And he believed that inherent righteousness was personally obtainable by cooperating with God’s subsequent grace. “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold the new has come” (2 Cor 5:17). So real righteousness may now be obtained by doing what is righteous. God does not declare us righteous regardless of whether we actually practise righteousness.* “Examine yourselves to see whether you are living in faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ is in you – unless you fail the test?”* (2 Cor 13:5). The indwelling of Christ brings about an interior transformation that transcends the essence of human nature outside of supernatural grace.* “That is not how you learned Christ…as truth is in Jesus, that you should put away the old self of your former way of life, corrupted through deceitful desires, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new self, created in God’s way in righteousness and holiness of truth”* (Eph 4:20-24). For us to shed the old nature and clothe ourselves with the new as a daily habit in the image of God, an interior transformation of our lives and change of conduct are required. We cannot truly become adopted children of God in Christ by being treated like defendants in a courtroom who have been acquitted by a judge while actually guilty.* “Stop lying to one another since you have taken off the old self with all its practices and have put on the new self which is being renewed, for knowledge, in the image of its creator”* (Col 3:10). Paul isn’t exhorting the impossible, for God’s grace is sufficient in enabling us to live our lives as children of a new creation. To question whether Mary was sinful - as if by necessity - is to question the efficacy of divine grace. Catholics do not contravene Scripture by believing Mary led a sinless life by God’s grace. It is not only possible but appropriate that she had, for she was predestined to be the mother of our sinless Lord, who also in his sacred humanity relied on divine grace to be made perfect through obedience to the will of the Father. But unlike us, Mary had no old self to cast off, since she was conceived preserved free from the stain of original sin.

Any Christian can demonstrate to others that he has faith - an interior virtue of the soul effected by grace - if he does good works, but these good works must concur with the interior virtue of faith to be justifying before God. Thus good works cannot merely be signs or effects of a saving faith. Faith initially justifies, but good works done in grace perfect and complete justification by rendering it profitable. What produces good works is divine grace, just as faith is a product of grace. God alone judges whether the good deed is prompted by the interior virtues of faith and charity. But a virtuous disposition alone does not save, nor does a good work done outside of grace. We must wish the poor and hungry well from the bottom of our heart and clothe and feed them to stand just before God and receive his mercy on judgment day (Jas 2:15-17).

*For judgment without mercy for him that hath not done mercy.
James 2, 13

Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
James 2:24*

James does not write “that by works a man is shown to be justified.”

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Marybeloved]

Further to the above, Mormons are seen as an illigitimate break away momement by most Protestants, who are seen as an illigitimate break away movement by many Catholics, who are seen as an illigitimate break away movement by some in the Orthodox church, who are seen as an illigitimate break away movement by virtually all Jews, who are seen as an obstinate people by God (I am over-simplifying to make a point).

Gerhard, I’m hoping you’re not deliberately lying here just to prove a false point. The Catholic Church is a break-away from no-one! Sorry to disappoint you there.

History is present and open for the investigations of any legitimate seeker- The beliefs, practices and lives of the first Christians can be known to any one who wants to know them, and they can decide for themselves the truth. The Catholic Church is exactly 2,000. She was founded by Christ, on a foundation Rock called Cephas the Rock- St Peter himself, and his bishopric was situated in Rome where he was martyred and burried in vatican Hill, under St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, and handed on his charism to his successor, St. Linus.

So what if “some” Orthodox blame the schism on Rome and accuse it of breaking communion? The Sedevancatist or Schismatic Catholic groups also consider themselves the true Church and believe that the whole of the rest of the Church broke from them in 1962. As do the Orientals who broke away back in about the 5th/6th century.

There’s a clear unbroken line of succession from St. Peter who received the keys of the kingdom from Christ (The authority of the Christ the King as his vicar) and got the first power to bind and loose, and was set as the foundation of the Jesus’ Church, and given the triple duty to feed the sheep and lambs of Christ and to strengthen them- That authority passed to St. Linus, then to St. Clement, all the way through 263 others down to Benedict XVI, all clearly traceable in History. This false notion you introduce here (Catholics broke away) is ridiculous! If the Prime minister rules for the king, and parts of the kingdom break away from the rule of the Prime Minister- Who can say that the Prime Minister “broke away” from the parts that removed themselves from his rule? Ridiculous. You’re coming up with false reasons to justify holding on to a man-made lie from the 16th Century.

Schisms are all about one this- Rejection of Authority- It’s a sin of pride. Saying you don’t call yourself Protestant is moot- You subscribe to “sola-scriptura”- The very definition of protestantism- It doesn’t matter what name you give yourself- your faith is protestantism.

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

Further to the above, Mormons are seen as an illigitimate break away momement by most Protestants, who are seen as an illigitimate break away movement by many Catholics, who are seen as an illigitimate break away movement by some in the Orthodox church, who are seen as an illigitimate break away movement by virtually all Jews, who are seen as an obstinate people by God (I am over-simplifying to make a point).

Gerhard, I’m hoping you’re not deliberately lying here just to prove a false point. The Catholic Church is a break-away from no-one! Sorry to disappoint you there.

History is present and open for the investigations of any legitimate seeker- The beliefs, practices and lives of the first Christians can be known to any one who wants to know them, and they can decide for themselves the truth. The Catholic Church is exactly 2,000. She was founded by Christ, on a foundation Rock called Cephas the Rock- St Peter himself, and his bishopric was situated in Rome where he was martyred and burried in vatican Hill, under St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, and handed on his charism to his successor, St. Linus.

So what if “some” Orthodox blame the schism on Rome and accuse it of breaking communion? The Sedevancatist or Schismatic Catholic groups also consider themselves the true Church and believe that the whole of the rest of the Church broke from them in 1962. As do the Orientals who broke away back in about the 5th/6th century.

There’s a clear unbroken line of succession from St. Peter who received the keys of the kingdom from Christ (The authority of the Christ the King as his vicar) and got the first power to bind and loose, and was set as the foundation of the Jesus’ Church, and given the triple duty to feed the sheep and lambs of Christ and to strengthen them- That authority passed to St. Linus, then to St. Clement, all the way through 263 others down to Benedict XVI, all clearly traceable in History. This false notion you introduce here (Catholics broke away) is ridiculous! If the Prime minister rules for the king, and parts of the kingdom break away from the rule of the Prime Minister- Who can say that the Prime Minister “broke away” from the parts that removed themselves from his rule?- Absurd. You’re coming up with false reasons to justify holding on to a man-made lie from the 16th Century.

And the Protestants did not “break away”. They began entirely new groups that had never existed- That’s why they have no Apostolic succession. They cannot trace their way back to the Apostles because they were founded by the Protestant fathers. Only Anglicanism can be said to have “broken” away- It was a legitimate Church which removed itself from the Authority of the Pope, and later lost its charisms. The Apostolic Churches (Catholic, E. Orthodox, O.Orthodox) can all trace their way back to the apostles who founded them. They can be said to break away simply because they removed themselves from the Authority of St. Peter and his successors- But Protestantism was invented by Martin Luther and his friends -There was no breaking away.

Schisms are all about one thing- Rejection of Authority- It’s a sin of pride. Saying you don’t call yourself Protestant is moot- You subscribe to “sola-scriptura”- The very definition of protestantism- It doesn’t matter what name you give yourself- your faith is protestantism.

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

I have no reason to trust anything but the Bible and cannot subscribe to traditions which were influenced by non-Christian political leaders such as Constantine (who was baptised a Christian on his death bed only) as well as subsequent Emperors. You give examples of good which the RCC has done. I believe that in the case of the RCC and the many other religious movements, ‘good’ is the enemy of ‘excellent’. Further, I hope I have answered your points in #511 and #512. Sorry I can’t get to it all.

You’re the one who tried to deny the Authority of the Church, based on the actions of some bad members- Now you want to try to dismiss her immense good fruit as nothing- You don’t get to keep your cake and eat it.

You say that you don’t accept decisions Constantine influenced, when his influence was limited to calling the councils only- So why don’t you reject the New Testament that was constituted at just those councils?- Again, you don’t get to keep your cake and eat it.

And please explain to me what you mean by excellent- Could you point to a more excellent example of Christian excellence than Mother Teresa? Just to help us understand the Standards we’re dealing with here:shrug:.

Since you’re implying that the faith was all created by Constantine- Are you saying that you will not find these truths in the Church of the early centuries before him?

And no- you’re not answering- you’re dodging. Did David’s and the Prophet’s personal failings take away from their callings? What fruits are you crediting to Christ apart from the Church he founded?

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

Thank you for taking the time to explain, so others could hear your belief. I realize that is the way Catholic explain the psalters, but to a Protestant it looks like Catholics have taken the praise intended for God and given it to another. And while Catholics are not required to pray these prayers, they are not discouraged and in some cases, encouraged to recite these prayers.

These words prayed to God as worship are nearly identical to the words many Catholics pray to Mary, so it is difficult for us to understand how they are worship to God, but only “veneration” to Mary.

To a Protestant, it seems wrong to take the words someone wrote to God, and use them to “honor” someone else.

Thanks again, but I suppose this is one of those things that cannot be resolved between Catholics and Protestants.

I believe anything can be resolved if people are able to lay their own prejudices aside and look at the matter with fresh eyes. Many, many protestants have indeed done that.

There are protestants who think any kind of praise and communication to others is bad when it applies to saints, but not to their loved ones on Earth or their pastors- Catholics include our Saints amongst our loved ones because of a deeper bond and closeness than familial ties. Anyone who takes time to understand our faith will be able to see that- especially with Mary, the highest of Saints and our Mother.

Peace!

 

[Ginger2]

Gerhard, I’m hoping you’re not deliberately lying …

Marybeloved, I am hoping you will not take this the wrong way. But I find that opening line grossly offensive and overused in this forum.

May I suggest you say something like, “I believe you are mistaken”? Or ask for clarification, because, in the case, I think you have misunderstood what Gerhard was saying.

Please accept this suggestion in the charitable manner it is offered and not as a criticsm.

 

[Marybeloved]

Marybeloved, I am hoping you will not take this the wrong way. But I find that opening line grossly offensive and overused in this forum.

May I suggest you say something like, “I believe you are mistaken”? Or ask for clarification, because, in the case, I think you have misunderstood what Gerhard was saying.

Please accept this suggestion in the charitable manner it is offered and not as a criticsm.

I’m sorry you’re offended by it. I did mean to challenge what he said there, I don’t think I misunderstood him. But I will keep your suggestion in mind in the future.

Peace!

 

[Ginger2]

Gerhard,…Schisms are all about one thing- Rejection of Authority- It’s a sin of pride. Saying you don’t call yourself Protestant is moot- You subscribe to “sola-scriptura”- The very definition of protestantism- It doesn’t matter what name you give yourself- your faith is protestantism.

Peace!

I am confused about this statement. Gerhard lists himself as “Christian” and you are objecting to the classification? Are you suggesting all Protestants are not Christian?

What declaration are you making in the above statement?

Thanks,

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

I’m sorry you’re offended by it. I did mean to challenge what he said there, I don’t think I misunderstood him. But I will keep your suggestion in mind in the future.

Peace!

It helps keep me out of trouble. lol

 

[Marybeloved]

I am confused about this statement. Gerhard lists himself as “Christian” and you are objecting to the classification? Are you suggesting all Protestants are not Christian?

What declaration are you making in the above statement?

Ginger,

Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants are different branches of the broader faith of Christianity- I don’t think any one should be confused about that. But Gerhard belongs to the branch that subscribes to “sola-scriptura” which is the heritage without ambiguity or confusion of Protestantism- The movement of the Protestant Reformers. He tried to make himself a “neutral” between the two heritages while holding to sola-scriptura, which is a non-existent and even false category- I just called him out on it. It’d be like a subscriber to papal authority and the magisterial rule of the Catholic Church who denies he’s Catholic.

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

From my interactions with Ginger, I’ve gone over my previous postings and now realize that they may have come off a lot sharper and harsher than I thought while I wrote them.

Since it’s a bit late to edit my comments and in order to avoid offending others, let me offer apologies to Gerhard and Other Protestants who may be offended by them- I probably would be very offended if I was on the other end. Sorry-

Peace!

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger,

Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants are different branches of the broader faith of Christianity- I don’t think any one should be confused about that. But Gerhard belongs to the branch that subscribes to “sola-scriptura” which is the heritage without ambiguity or confusion of Protestantism- The movement of the Protestant Reformers. He tried to make himself a “neutral” between the two heritages while holding to sola-scriptura, which is a non-existent and even false category- I just called him out on it. It’d be like a subscriber to papal authority and the magisterial rule of the Catholic Church who denies he’s Catholic.

Peace!

lol I see what you were saying. Thanks

 

[Ginger2]

From my interactions with Ginger, I’ve gone over my previous postings and now realize that they may have come off a lot sharper and harsher than I thought while I wrote them.

Since it’s a bit late to edit my comments and in order to avoid offending others, let me offer apologies to Gerhard and Other Protestants who may be offended by them- I probably would be very offended if I was on the other end. Sorry-

Peace!

Thank you, Marybeloved!

I try to read everything with a positive tone as it is easy to misunderstand in cyberspace. I get my feelings hurt a lot less often and am able to avoid getting upset or angry as often.

It helps me respond in a kinder tone, too.

Ginger