T
Tomster
Guest
Or better yet at what age did Mary choose to remain sinless?
How did she know that she was without sin to begin with?
How do you infallibly know what you know?
- Status
How did she know that she was without sin to begin with?
How do you infallibly know what you know?
M
Mickey
Guest
Are you saying that Our Lady chose to be a sinner?
Oh my! I do not claim infallibility. I look to Sacred Scripture. The first seven Ecumenical Councils, and the writings of the early Church Fathers.
I find it humorous when amateur Roman Catholic apologists begin accusing non-Roman Catholics of infallibility when they are trying to defend the doctrine of infallibility.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif
T
Tomster
Guest
No, I did not say that Mary chose to be sinner.
I am glad you that are not usurping the charism of infalliblitity for yourself. That just confirms that all of your previous statements are fallible and that they could be in error.
I did not accuse of you of trying to ursurp that charism for yourself. If you read my post correctly you will see that I phrased the topic in a form of a question.
You humor is sadly misplaced.
M
Mickey
Guest
Why would I attempt that. I have no pope dreams. Get it?
I am the most wretched of all sinners.
Most people enjoy my humor.
Perhaps I am only funny to myself. 
Anyway, I must be gone for a few days. I have enjoyed our discussion Tomster. Please do not take offence at my posts. I do not mean to offend–forgive me if I have.
May the love and peace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ be with you and your family always.
You are my brother in Christ!
Slava Isusu Christu!
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I find it sad that a member of the esteemed Orthodox branch of the Catholic Church does not understand his own faith’s theology. You do know that Orthodox do believe in a type of purgatory yes? Or are you one of the further estranged Orthodox who subscribe to the odd notion of “Aerial Toll-Houses”. Now that could be pretty funny to talk about in another thread…
James
M
Mickey
Guest
Wrong. Do your homework.
A
abcd
Guest
This tune really gets old.:harp:
M
Mickey
Guest
:yup:
T
Tomster
Guest
To answer your question original sin is transmitted through our fallen human nature.
St. Paul in several places in his epistles used the the expression the New Adam in reference to Christ. Thus, for example, in writing to the Corinthians, he says, “The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit.” (1 Corinthians 15:45) Christ is then the New Adam. Sin and death came into the world through the first Adam, but abundant restoration came through the New Adam: " . . . as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."
It may be that the early Fathers of the Church derived their idea of the New Eve from the oral teachings of the Apostles, or it may be that they took up the very open hints in the writings of St. Paul. Certainly it is not hard to see that if there was a New Adam, Christ, to outbalance the old Adam, there should also be a New Eve, Mary, to outbalance the old Eve. For St. Paul said that the Redemption was superabundant: " . . . where sin abounded, grace did more abound."
The Fathers love to on the contrast of Mary and Eve. God made great plans for the first Eve, but she, in her disobedience, blocked the original design of God. God, however, found a remedy that would more than compensate for Eve: in Mary He would have all that He desired and much more.
The possibilities implied in this parallel and contrast are numerous. When God made the first Eve, He created her without any stain of sin on her soul: she was immaculate. Hence we wonder: Does the concept of Mary as the New Eve imply that she, too, was to be conceived immaculate? God had planned that the first Eve should be in the fullest sense “the mother of all the living.” (Genesis 3:20) For she, with Adam, was not only to transmit physical life to all mankind: she, with him, was to hand on also all the other rich gifts of God, including the greatest gift of all, God’s grace. If, then, Mary is the New Eve in a superabundant redemption, is she to become the channel through which all graces will come to men? God had planned that Adam and Eve, if they had been victorious over sin, would also have been victorious over death, so that He would take both their bodies and their souls into Heaven immediately after their stay in this world. Therefore we may also ask whether the New Eve, by virtue of her share in the victory of the New Adam over death and sin, should be taken body and soul into Heaven even before the general resuurection.
It would be difficult for us, merely using our own reasoning powers, to be sure that that such truths as these really are contained in the Father’s concept of a New Eve. We can come to certainty only through the interpetations of the Church, the living guardian and interpreter of the revelation given to us in Scripture and Tradition. For before He died, Our Lord promised, PROMISED MIND YOU, to send the Holy Spirit to the Church: " . . .He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you."
T
Tomster
Guest
Ever old, ever new !
T
Tomster
Guest
Do you have an answer for this, Please?
M
mangy_dog
Guest
You are the first person to recognize my subtleties
I too pray daily for the conversion of all true christian protestants prior to these events which are rapidly approaching. I pray that St. Michaels sword is stayed a little longer.If only they knew that the Theotokos is the one staying that sword.
God bless you my friend.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
P
Protestant101
Guest
Where does it say that “baptism is a sign of the new covenant?”
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Where do you find the word “trinity” in the Bible? Yet you believe it…Where does it say that “baptism is a sign of the new covenant?”
It comes down to a cohesive contextual reading of Scripture. And the way baptism is mentioned throughout NT, there can be little doubt…
P
Protestant101
Guest
Can you, then, show us the cohesion and context, by telling us where the Bible “implies” this statement you made about baptism?
It would be interesting to compare your answer to the Catholic answer.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
1: If you bow down in worship to statues, how is that not idolatry?
2: Ah…So Scripture (from which Augustine got “that horrendous predestination thing”) is false?
3: Calvinists teach DOUBLE predestination, which is unbiblical.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello East Anglican,
Could this server handle it?
LOL, now you sound like me, except I’m Catholic, so you know I have way more verses.
What happened? I left for a while and now that I’m back, I see that these people are wearing you out. :whacky:
I won’t make it worse for you, but when your keyboard cools down; I’d like to see the verses that to have, but then, if I were you I would back away from the monitor.
I don’t want you to suffer from sensory overload, or “multiple-verse blindness” .:hypno:
L
LutheranDK
Guest
I’m off to work in a little while, so I don’t have the time right now. But please remind me! I’m not trying to crawl away from this!
Just ONE comment: Do you believe that the Roman church is wrong per definition on all of its doctrines, or do you go on a “case by case”-basis?
I do the latter…
P
Protestant101
Guest
You said “one comment” but it was actually, one question. Your question doesn’t even look slightly relevant to the question I have asked of you.
I see it as a bit odd that a Lutheran would be critisizing Catholics for “bowing down to idols” when Lutherans, like many Protestants, bow down to the Catholic Church “authority” every Sunday.
But, to answer your question; while I certainly do not see catholics as having what they call “the fullness of the truth;” they do have a little bit of light. You have to realize that when they say “Word of God;” for eg., they mean something different than most other Christians. This would apply to almost all of their doctrines. For another example; you should likely look into what they really mean when they say “unity” or “ecumenical.”
In all fairness, I do try to look at each doctrine on it’s own merits; I would not go so far as to say they are “wrong on all of their doctrines.”
B
boppaid
Guest
The way I understand it is that the majority of Protestants have two main beliefs in common: scripture alone and faith alone to be saved. Those are their common doctrines, and they believe those doctrines are the most essential. The rest, how they worship, etc., are gravy and not important in the grand scheme of things. The reason there are so many different branches of Protestantism is primarily due to their varying worship preferences.
Actually Baptists ARE born again and fundamentalists. Why are you seperating them?
I’m sorry, but bringing that up is akin to Protestants using Pedafile priests against us.
- Status