Mother Teresa was not a good person!

  • Thread starter Thread starter swimstud
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

swimstud

Guest
I went to a website to watch a “Heaven” video. I saw the following on the website:

“The Bible teaches that no one is good (Romans 3:10). Not you. Not me. Not Mother Teresa. Not the Catholic saints. Not even the Prophets God sent to earth in centuries past. Only God is good. (Luke 18:18-20)”

taken from: myfaith.com/Watch-Heaven-Video-DialUp.htm

I was a little confused. Give your opinions. Do you think that this is true.because I though that all the saints including mother teresa were very holy people.
 
Peace be with you!

It’s a different kind of good. This is the problem with most Protestants…they pick and choose which verses suit their beliefs and don’t try to reconcile them with all the other verses. James tells us that we must have good works to go along with our faith…in that sense Mother Theresa was very good. We are also told that all those in heaven are saints. Then in Revelation we are told that nothing unclean can enter heaven; we must be holy to enter. That would mean that only “good” people can go to heaven (via Purgatory for most of us).
God is good in a way that no one else can ever hope to be. Mother Theresa and all the saints and prophets are good through their faith and deeds. But all fall short of the glory of God, so we can never hope to be as good as Him.

In Christ,
Rand
 
swimstud said:
“The Bible teaches that no one is good (Romans 3:10). Not you. Not me. Not Mother Teresa. Not the Catholic saints. Not even the Prophets God sent to earth in centuries past. Only God is good. (Luke 18:18-20)” taken from: myfaith.com/Watch-Heaven-Video-DialUp.htm
Click to expand...

The Author needs to check is own link to Romans 3:10. Because this verse does NOT say that there is no one who is “good” - it says there is no one who is “righteous.”

These are not the same words, in either English or in Greek, and they do not mean the same thing. One CANNOT use these words interchangeably.

The word “righteous” means innocent (free from sin). Since even Mother Therea was a sinner (by her own frequent admission), it would not be strictly correct to call her “righteous” (and she would have been the first to reject the title).

But that doesn’t mean she was not “good” (a term which describes intent and conduct, not the state of one’s mortal soul).

The author of the website article does not know the difference between “righteous” and “good.” He assumes they mean the same thing, and goes on to make an absurd conclusion based on his poor grasp of the English (and/or Greek) language.

Oh, and FWIW, we do sometimes use the term “righteous” rather loosely. Even Our Lord did this when he said Abel was “righteous” (Mt 23:35).
 
This type of side is a perfect example of the dangers of private interpretation of the Bible. That is why we have the Magisterium.

Peope can pick and choose which passages use and even substitute words to fit their own belief set. Martin Luther was a perfect example when he translated “faith” in Romans to “faith alone” to justify his personal beliefs.

PF
 
40.png
swimstud:
I went to a website to watch a “Heaven” video. I saw the following on the website:

“The Bible teaches that no one is good (Romans 3:10). Not you. Not me. Not Mother Teresa. Not the Catholic saints. Not even the Prophets God sent to earth in centuries past. Only God is good. (Luke 18:18-20)”

taken from: myfaith.com/Watch-Heaven-Video-DialUp.htm

I was a little confused. Give your opinions. Do you think that this is true.because I though that all the saints including mother teresa were very holy people.
Click to expand...
Usually, the quoted verse is used by anti-Catholics to deny the immaculate conception of Mary.

What Romans 3:10 refers to is the same thing the Original Sin story in Genesis refers to: Each of us, aside the action of the grace on the cross, is fundamentally alienated from God. The thing underlying the Romans 3:10 principle is the same thing underlying the concept that unbaptized babies can not join God in Heaven, so that there must be a Limbo of some sort.

Reliance on Romans 3:10 and similar verses (Psalm 14:1-3, e.g.) to deny the immaculate conception is mistaken. These verses are the reason why the grace won by Christ on the cross was necessary to preserve Mary from the stain of Original Sin at her conception. Mary would have been destroyed by the special presence of God touching her person at the time of the Annunciation, had Mary not been immaculately conceived.
 
These verses are the reason why the grace won by Christ on the cross was necessary to preserve Mary from the stain of Original Sin at her conception. Mary would have been destroyed by the special presence of God touching her person at the time of the Annunciation, had Mary not been immaculately conceived.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that explanation of Doctrine that has troubled me.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Usually, the quoted verse is used by anti-Catholics to deny the immaculate conception of Mary.

… These verses are the reason why the grace won by Christ on the cross was necessary to preserve Mary from the stain of Original Sin at her conception. Mary would have been destroyed by the special presence of God touching her person at the time of the Annunciation, had Mary not been immaculately conceived.
Click to expand...
While I don’t think the Church would condemn this speculation, it hasn’t taught that Mary necessarily had to be preserved from the stain of Original Sin (which she certainly was). It might be better to say that it was “fitting” that she was preserved from the stain of Original Sin, since God could have possibly become incarnate through a prostitute if he really wanted to.
 
40.png
swimstud:
I went to a website to watch a “Heaven” video. I saw the following on the website:

“The Bible teaches that no one is good (Romans 3:10). Not you. Not me. Not Mother Teresa. Not the Catholic saints. Not even the Prophets God sent to earth in centuries past. Only God is good. (Luke 18:18-20)”

taken from: myfaith.com/Watch-Heaven-Video-DialUp.htm

I was a little confused. Give your opinions. Do you think that this is true.because I though that all the saints including mother teresa were very holy people.
Click to expand...
They clearly have taken the verse of Romans 3:10 literally. They interpret it as if we can not do any good. The verse means that Man-kind has went astray. Through baptism we are cleansed of this wicked inherentance, however we are still capable of sinning, which is why confession is important.

An official asked him this question, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 Jesus answered him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 20 You know the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother.’” -Luke 18:18-20

Clearly here Jesus is saying that he is God and good! Jesus is God, so he is confirming that he is God. Also, at the time the New covenant had not yet been fullfilled. We can be good in Jesus Christ.
 
GK Chesterton wrote that all things taken equal-two guys who have the same virtues and vices, a protestant thinks himself a good Christian and a catholic knows he is a bad catholic.

Can’t remember the book it came from…but does this sound true to you guys?
 
40.png
swimstud:
I went to a website to watch a “Heaven” video. I saw the following on the website:

“The Bible teaches that no one is good (Romans 3:10). Not you. Not me. Not Mother Teresa. Not the Catholic saints. Not even the Prophets God sent to earth in centuries past. Only God is good. (Luke 18:18-20)”

taken from: myfaith.com/Watch-Heaven-Video-DialUp.htm

I was a little confused. Give your opinions. Do you think that this is true.because I though that all the saints including mother teresa were very holy people.
Click to expand...
Let me say plainly what others have hinted at. Many Protestants believe that we are saved while remaining dirty, rotten sinners. They believe that we are merely declared righteous before God instead of the Catholic understanding that we *become *righteous. After we become righteous, we can respond to God’s grace to be good and do good. The Protestants say that, whereas we might be able to do good, we can never be good.

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta (Mother Teresa) was clearly a saint. She practiced perfect charity, which means that, yes, she was good. It drives those Protestants crazy because she can’t be explained by their theology. I have this image of them avoiding the obvious by holding their hands over their eyes and ears and shouting, “She’s not good, she’s not good,…”
 
40.png
DeFide:
While I don’t think the Church would condemn this speculation, it hasn’t taught that Mary necessarily had to be preserved from the stain of Original Sin (which she certainly was). It might be better to say that it was “fitting” that she was preserved from the stain of Original Sin, since God could have possibly become incarnate through a prostitute if he really wanted to.
Click to expand...
Exodus 33:20. And Moses was no prostitute.

Certainly, the Divine reality actually touching and combining with the ova from Mary’s ovary to form the Incarnation, and then that combined reality actually *touching * Mary’s womb, is far, far, far more intimate than merely looking at the face of God, which God Himself assures us would have killed Moses.

I stand on what I said: Mary’s immaculate conception was *necessary, *because the taint of Original Sin is profound, and inconsistent with an intimate joining with God.
 
Essentially as far as this goes this view is compatible with Catholic teaching. The problem is that the film and teaching does not tell the whole story. We can participate in the very nature of God. In fact that is what God desires and redemption does not take place until that happens. In other words, the link talks about the beginning of the path but not its destiny.

Sometimes we forget that the kingdom is advanced not simply by the baptism of infants but by adult conversions. The emphasis of the link is upon adult conversions. As such it is a good reminder to us.

Jesus Himself said that only the Father in heaven is “good”. We project the idea of a final cleansing after death to make us pure enough to enter heaven fully. I don’t see the problem with saying that Mother Theresa was only relatively “good” compared with God. The statement is prima facia true.

Dan L
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Exodus 33:20. And Moses was no prostitute.

Certainly, the Divine reality actually touching and combining with the ova from Mary’s ovary to form the Incarnation, and then that combined reality actually *touching *Mary’s womb, is far, far, far more intimate than merely looking at the face of God, which God Himself assures us would have killed Moses.

I stand on what I said: Mary’s immaculate conception was *necessary, *because the taint of Original Sin is profound, and inconsistent with an intimate joining with God.
Click to expand...
And do not forget, DeFide, that Exodus 33:20 is also an expression of the Church’s Magisterium.
 
40.png
swimstud:
"The Bible teaches that no one is good (Romans 3:10). Not you. Not me. Not Mother Teresa. Not the Catholic saints. Not even the Prophets God sent to earth in centuries past. Only God is good.
Click to expand...
Surely only God is good. But whoever believe in Jesus Christ, to him is to be restored “the-glory-of-God”, therefore we are called “the sons of God”.

Mother Theresa is truely human, yet, what she did to the poor is divine. It’s not “her works” but “God’s works in her life”.

There is noway one can say Mother Theresa is similar to robbers and prostitutes. She is different : not because of herself, but because Jesus who is TRUELY ALIVE in her.

God bless.
 
In a sense, only God is good. Jesus said so himself (sorry, no Bible with me, so no reference) when a man called him “good teacher.” Only God is good in himself. His goodness is not dependent on anyone or anything outside of God. We, on the other hand, are dependent on God for our goodness. Even the inherent goodness in existence is dependent on God. Our growth in goodness/holiness is dependent on God. If God ceased to love us, we would cease to exist; there would be nothing good about us, not even the good of existence itself. God is so good, though, that he does not jealously possess his goodness. Rather, he wants us to be like him, so he shares his goodness with us to enable us to be perfected as he is perfect.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
… Mary would have been destroyed by the special presence of God touching her person at the time of the Annunciation, had Mary not been immaculately conceived.
Click to expand...
Where did you get this idea? I’ve never seen it in catholic teaching.
 
To elaborate, this is one of the critical differences between catholicism and most of protestantism. It is one of the concepts that kept me catholic when it FELT like all the ‘real’ christians in my life were protestant.

Luther and most of his descendents actually believe that man is by nature totally depraved. Catholics understand humanity to be GOOD, but fallen. Critical difference.

Luther described the ‘saved’ as dung heaps covered by pure white snow. Believers have righteousness ‘imputed’ to them by Christ’s sacrifice.

Catholics, by contrast, understand that we are actually transformed by grace and that we are called to surrender ourselves to the point where grace fully sanctifies our entire being. Thus, we enter heaven worthy. Not because we ‘boot-strapped’ our way, but because of grace!

Frankly, I find the traditional protestant understanding repugnant. What a screwed up vision of God: he must delude himself into seeing us as perfect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top