Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter suzyq_psu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, packermann, did an excellent job with answering your questions, however, I would like to further elaborate on them.
  1. Virgin birth of Mary…
Blessed Mary was not born of a virgin, She was conceived by St. Anne her mother and St. Jochime her father through normal means.
her sinless life
She is also the True Ark of the Covenant. The Old Ark of the Covenant was made of the most pure materials and merely foreshadowed the Blessed Virgin Mary. Why would God have the Old Ark to be created out of the purest materials and yet create the True Ark with blemish?
her assumption
You don’t seem to have a problem with Enoch and Elijah. Even the Scriptures says that the Ark of the Covenant will be assumed into heaven (Ps. cxxxi. 8)

The common opinion is that she lived 63 years in all. At the time of her death, (as St. Denys first, and after him St. Damascene de dormit. Deipara. writeth) all the Apostles then dispersed into diverse nations to preach the Gospel, were miraculously brought together (saving St. Thomas who came the third day after) to Jerusalem, to honor her divine departure and funeral, as the said St. Denys witnesseth. Who saith that himself, St. Timothy, and St. Hierotheus were present: testifying also of his own hearing, that both before her death and after for three days, not only the Apostles and other holy men present, but the Angels also and Powers of heaven did sing most melodious Hymns. They buried her sacred body in Gethsemani; but for St. Thomas sake, who desired to see and to reverence it, they opened the sepulchre the third day, and finding it void of the holy body, but exceedingly fragrant, they returned, assuredly deeming that her body was assumpted into heaven as the Church of God holdeth, being most agreeable to the singular privilege of the mother of God, and therefore celebrateth most solemnly the day of her Assumption. And that is consonant not only to the said St. Denys, and St. Damascene, but to holy Athanasias also, who avoucheth the same, Serm. in Evang. de Deipara. of which Assumption of her body, St. Bernard also wrote five notable sermons extant in his works.
co-redeemer or at least an advocate to be prayed to
You do know what the prefix co means right? The term “co-redemptrix” is properly translated “the woman with the redeemer” or more literally “she who buys back with [the redeemer].” The prefix “co” comes from the Latin term “cum” which means “with” and not “equal to.” Co-redemptrix therefore as applied to Mary refers to her exceptional cooperation with and under her divine son Jesus Christ, in the redemption of the human family, as manifested in Christian Scripture.

You do know what pray means, right? It means to humble petition and ask.
2 Removal of the 2nd commandment
This commandment was never removed. The Catholic First Commandment is:
I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee forth out of the Land of Ægypt, out of the house of servitude. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thee a graven thing, nor any similitude that is in heaven above, & that is in the earth beneath, neither of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
When a Catholic fully learns this Commandment, they then learn the shortened version of it which is:
I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
3, Changing the Sabbath…
The Catholic Church never changed the Sabbath day, in fact the Sabbath day is still Saturday while the Lord’s Day is Sunday. This is something that you need to understand.
  1. Splitting the tenth commandment into two separate commandments
The Catholic Church follows the Decalog of Deuteronomy. For further info, you should look up Quæstionum in Heptateuchum libri VII, Book II, Question lxxi. By St. Augustine (a.k.a. “Questions of Exodus”)
**
Traditional changes**
Addressing priests as father
You are also incorrect here:

Pope. The word (πάππας or πάπας, originally a childish word for father, Lat. papa) was given at first as a title of respect to ecclesiastics generally. Among the Greeks at this day it is used of all priest, and was used, as late at least as the middle ages, of inferior clerics. In the West it seems to have become very early a special title of bishops. Thus the Roman clergy (Cyprian, Ep. ⅷ. 1) speaks of the Bishop of Carthage as “the blessed Pope” (“Benedictum Papatem”). Even as late as the sixth century the title of Pope was sometimes given to metropolitans in the West. (See Hefele, “Concil.” ⅲ. P 20 seq.) Gradually, however, the title was limited to the Bishop of Rome, and we find a synod of Pavia in 998 (Hefele, ⅳ. p. 653) rebuking an archbishop of Milan for calling himself Pope. Gregory Ⅶ., in a Roman Council of the year 1073, formally prohibited the assumption of the title by any other than the Roman Bishop. It is of course in this last and most restricted sense that we use the word here. By the Pope we mean the Bishop of Rome, who is, the successor of St. Peter, and as such the vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Church, the doctor and teacher of all the faithful. We propose to give some account (1) of the place St. Peter occupies in Scripture; (2) of the positions of the Pope in the Ante-Nicene age; (3) of the testimonies of later fathers and councils; (4) to sketch the position of the Pope in the Church of the present time. Obviously, in a subject so vast we cannont do more than direct attention to the chief points.

Oremus pro invicem
 
Actually, packermann, did an excellent job with answering your questions, however, I would like to further elaborate on them.

Blessed Mary was not born of a virgin, She was conceived by St. Anne her mother and St. Jochime her father through normal means.

She is also the True Ark of the Covenant. The Old Ark of the Covenant was made of the most pure materials and merely foreshadowed the Blessed Virgin Mary. Why would God have the Old Ark to be created out of the purest materials and yet create the True Ark with blemish?

You don’t seem to have a problem with Enoch and Elijah. Even the Scriptures says that the Ark of the Covenant will be assumed into heaven (Ps. cxxxi. 8)

The common opinion is that she lived 63 years in all. At the time of her death, (as St. Denys first, and after him St. Damascene de dormit. Deipara. writeth) all the Apostles then dispersed into diverse nations to preach the Gospel, were miraculously brought together (saving St. Thomas who came the third day after) to Jerusalem, to honor her divine departure and funeral, as the said St. Denys witnesseth. Who saith that himself, St. Timothy, and St. Hierotheus were present: testifying also of his own hearing, that both before her death and after for three days, not only the Apostles and other holy men present, but the Angels also and Powers of heaven did sing most melodious Hymns. They buried her sacred body in Gethsemani; but for St. Thomas sake, who desired to see and to reverence it, they opened the sepulchre the third day, and finding it void of the holy body, but exceedingly fragrant, they returned, assuredly deeming that her body was assumpted into heaven as the Church of God holdeth, being most agreeable to the singular privilege of the mother of God, and therefore celebrateth most solemnly the day of her Assumption. And that is consonant not only to the said St. Denys, and St. Damascene, but to holy Athanasias also, who avoucheth the same, Serm. in Evang. de Deipara. of which Assumption of her body, St. Bernard also wrote five notable sermons extant in his works.

You do know what the prefix co means right? The term “co-redemptrix” is properly translated “the woman with the redeemer” or more literally “she who buys back with [the redeemer].” The prefix “co” comes from the Latin term “cum” which means “with” and not “equal to.” Co-redemptrix therefore as applied to Mary refers to her exceptional cooperation with and under her divine son Jesus Christ, in the redemption of the human family, as manifested in Christian Scripture.

You do know what pray means, right? It means to humble petition and ask.

This commandment was never removed. The Catholic First Commandment is:

When a Catholic fully learns this Commandment, they then learn the shortened version of it which is:

The Catholic Church never changed the Sabbath day, in fact the Sabbath day is still Saturday while the Lord’s Day is Sunday. This is something that you need to understand.

The Catholic Church follows the Decalog of Deuteronomy. For further info, you should look up Quæstionum in Heptateuchum libri VII, Book II, Question lxxi. By St. Augustine (a.k.a. “Questions of Exodus”)

You are also incorrect here:

Pope. The word (πάππας or πάπας, originally a childish word for father, Lat. papa) was given at first as a title of respect to ecclesiastics generally. Among the Greeks at this day it is used of all priest, and was used, as late at least as the middle ages, of inferior clerics. In the West it seems to have become very early a special title of bishops. Thus the Roman clergy (Cyprian, Ep. ⅷ. 1) speaks of the Bishop of Carthage as “the blessed Pope” (“Benedictum Papatem”). Even as late as the sixth century the title of Pope was sometimes given to metropolitans in the West. (See Hefele, “Concil.” ⅲ. P 20 seq.) Gradually, however, the title was limited to the Bishop of Rome, and we find a synod of Pavia in 998 (Hefele, ⅳ. p. 653) rebuking an archbishop of Milan for calling himself Pope. Gregory Ⅶ., in a Roman Council of the year 1073, formally prohibited the assumption of the title by any other than the Roman Bishop. It is of course in this last and most restricted sense that we use the word here. By the Pope we mean the Bishop of Rome, who is, the successor of St. Peter, and as such the vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Church, the doctor and teacher of all the faithful. We propose to give some account (1) of the place St. Peter occupies in Scripture; (2) of the positions of the Pope in the Ante-Nicene age; (3) of the testimonies of later fathers and councils; (4) to sketch the position of the Pope in the Church of the present time. Obviously, in a subject so vast we cannont do more than direct attention to the chief points.

Oremus pro invicem
Thank you Gara, what does “invicem” mean?
 
The common opinion is that she lived 63 years in all. At the time of her death, (as St. Denys first, and after him St. Damascene de dormit. Deipara. writeth) all the Apostles then dispersed into diverse nations to preach the Gospel, were miraculously brought together (saving St. Thomas who came the third day after) to Jerusalem, to honor her divine departure and funeral, as the said St. Denys witnesseth. Who saith that himself, St. Timothy, and St. Hierotheus were present: testifying also of his own hearing, that both before her death and after for three days, not only the Apostles and other holy men present, but the Angels also and Powers of heaven did sing most melodious Hymns. They buried her sacred body in Gethsemani; but for St. Thomas sake, who desired to see and to reverence it, they opened the sepulchre the third day, and finding it void of the holy body, but exceedingly fragrant, they returned, assuredly deeming that her body was assumpted into heaven as the Church of God holdeth, being most agreeable to the singular privilege of the mother of God, and therefore celebrateth most solemnly the day of her Assumption. And that is consonant not only to the said St. Denys, and St. Damascene, but to holy Athanasias also, who avoucheth the same, Serm. in Evang. de Deipara. of which Assumption of her body, St. Bernard also wrote five notable sermons extant in his works.
This is good information. Therefore the Assumption is not a matter of revelation as such, but more a matter of historical record. We can say the same for the crucifixion It also is not revelation, but an event in history. And again with Christ’s post-resurrection appearances. These are witnessed historical occurrences.
 
… talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that’s where we get most of the rituals.
It’s true, most of the early Catholics were pagans turned Christian. Such as the Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, etc. The rituals in the large are taken from from Judaism, from which Christianity began.
 
=suzyq_psu;9122341]Hello there, I am new to these forums but I am struggling between my faith and that of scripture alone. I keep going back and forth, it’s torturous! Anyways I came upon this, so could you refute it, please? It talks about how the church wasn’t built on Peter also he has other thread talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that’s where we get most of the rituals.
N C Rel Forum
suzyq_psu

***Welcome!

You have raised too many profound issues to permit a in-depth response to all of them. But let’s see how we can do?
  1. “Church was NOT built on Peter***”
Clearly this understanding in uniformed and also wrong.

Mt. 16: 17-19 “And Jesus [God] answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I [God] tell [CHOOSE] you, [singular] you are Peter, and on [YOU] this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, [Fulfilled in John 20:19-22 & Mt. 28:19-20] and whatever you [singular] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” These powers are extended to all of the apostles in Mt. 18: 18 & 28: 17-20.

The “Church” belongs to Christ NOT Peter who is only the “caretaker” “bind and loose” were common terms at the time for unlimited Governance USED by Kings of “walled in Cites” such as Jerusalem. They REALLY had had GATES; w/ locks and a ‘Prime Minister” who ran the city and reported ONLY to the King. This is the Role Christ GIVES to Peter and is NOT debatable. Mt. 28:18-20 “And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; [singular to the apostles]”

Eph. 2:19-20
“So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the ***household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, ***in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

“As to pagans converting” OK? And so what?

Matt.1: 21 “she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." … Lk. 19: 10 “For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost."…** Rom. 11:32** “For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all” …**1Tim.2: 1, 4 **“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

*Saints don’t need God; sinners do!

As for our rituals: MOST of them have a OT practice foundation. BUT keep in mind before Abram became “Abraham” he WAS a pagan.*

*ASK and SEEK specifics so that they can be explained.

Your basic problem MY FRIEND is a fuller understanding of what we believe ; AND
Why and How we are able; even commanded to do so.*TOWARDS THIS END I HAVE SENT YOU A PRIVATE MESSAGE.

God Bless you,
Pat /PJM on this FORUM
 
=Hamlet123;9343314]
God does not lie, nor does He change, ( Tit. 1:2 & Mal 3:6), and any doctrine or tradition that contradicts the scriptures is to be rejected as spurious. This does not mean that no new doctrine or tradition can ever be introduced into the church, but rather that only such doctrine and tradition that can be shown to not violate or contradict scripture but rather edify and strengthen God’s people can be acceptable.

God bless

WELCOME Hamlet!

GREAT post! Delighted to have you join us:D

God Bless,
pat /PJM
 
Where is this in scripture since the ark of the covenant was a copy of the one in heaven.
First off, I would like to explain that Scripture is very complex and hard to understand.
Code:
                              When looking at sacred Scripture, one must take several factors into consideration.

  1. *]What is the Author (i.e., God) trying to convey? (e.g., Gen. i. 3, God here means that the amount of light needed to hold all physical matter together (refer to Quantum Physics/Mechanics1) and that the Angels were created)
    *]What is the Writer (e.g., Moses) trying to Convey? (e.g., Gen. i. 3, Moses here writes of the Angels being created)
    *]The Time Period (e.g., A kings mother is the queen within the time periods before Christ, during Christ time on earth, and for a short time period (several centuries) after Christ)
    *]The correlation between the Old Testament & New Testament, (i.e., The Old Testament Prophecies the new, while the New Testament fulfills the Old, and thus they are intimately intertwined with each other.)
    Code:
     [1](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#sdfootnote1anc)*Cƒ.*     Star Light, Star Bright Teacher Page: Science Background     [amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/light/star-light-science.html](http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/light/star-light-science.html)
    At any rate, when we read through the Scriptures, the Ark of the Old Covenant holds three items; the covenant stones, a pot of manna, and the rod of Aaron.
    **Hebrew ix. 4 : **Having a golden censer, and the ark of the testament covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron, that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament.
    You must then ask your self:

    Who is the Word? John i. 1, i. 14
    Who is the High Priest? Hebrews iii. 1, iv. 14, vi. 20
    Who is the Bread come down from Heaven? John vi. 51

    For nine months,
    She carried the Word of GOD Incarnate in her womb. John i. 1, i. 14
    She carried the High Priest of GOD in her womb. Hebrews iii. 1, iv. 14, vi. 20
    She carried the Bread come down from Heaven in her womb. John vi. 51

    “And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.” Luke ii. 7]

    Thus, the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. Then in Ps. cxxxi. 8 (Septuagint numbering) it reads:

    “Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified.”

    Which is merely one single verse out of various others.
    Where do you get the above info from? thank you.
    I got the information originally from the 1610 A.D. Douay Rheims 1635 Print which you can view here. (Act. I annotations)

    From there you can view tertullian.org/ textexcavation.com/texts.html thelatinlibrary.com/ earlychristianwritings.com/ &c., and look up any of the actual documents which have survived to this day.

    I hope that this answers your questions.

    Oremus pro invicem.
 
Thank you packermann for correcting me on the difference between virgin birth and immaculate conception. I apologize for that error.

The Catholic church claims that Mary was sinless;
“From the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 508).

But this would be a violation of scripture which says “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom3:23 & 5:12) (Excepting Jesus, of course.). You must also remember that the Bible definition of sin is “the transgression of the law’” ( 1 John 3:4) So according to scripture Mary was a sinner like everyone else.

That is not to say she was not highly favored of God, for almost every Bible version translates Luke 1:28 as saying she was. "highly favored "rather than "full of grace " as found in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible

The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.
  1. “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14).
  2. “And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people,” (Acts 6:8).
Jesus said in Matt 11:11 “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

So we have Jesus saying that no one born of woman was greater than John the Baptist, and scripture saying that all born of woman (excepting Jesus) have sinned. On the other hand we have the Catholic church claiming Mary greater than John in that she was immaculately conceived and sinless as well…

Here is a perfect example to show the importance of sola scriptura. Any dogma or doctrine that contradicts the inspired word of God must be rejected as spurious. To believe in the immaculate conception and life-long sinlessness of Mary is to reject the teachings of the inspired word of God.

Thank you pacermann for your thoughtful response. I will try to answer your other points in succeeding posts.
 
Thank you packermann for correcting me on the difference between virgin birth and immaculate conception. I apologize for that error.

The Catholic church claims that Mary was sinless;
“From the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 508).

But this would be a violation of scripture which says “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom3:23 & 5:12) (Excepting Jesus, of course.). You must also remember that the Bible definition of sin is “the transgression of the law’” ( 1 John 3:4) So according to scripture Mary was a sinner like everyone else.

That is not to say she was not highly favored of God, for almost every Bible version translates Luke 1:28 as saying she was. "highly favored "rather than "full of grace " as found in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible

The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.
  1. “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14).
  2. “And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people,” (Acts 6:8).
Jesus said in Matt 11:11 “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

So we have Jesus saying that no one born of woman was greater than John the Baptist, and scripture saying that all born of woman (excepting Jesus) have sinned. On the other hand we have the Catholic church claiming Mary greater than John in that she was immaculately conceived and sinless as well…

Here is a perfect example to show the importance of sola scriptura. Any dogma or doctrine that contradicts the inspired word of God must be rejected as spurious. To believe in the immaculate conception and life-long sinlessness of Mary is to reject the teachings of the inspired word of God.

Thank you pacermann for your thoughtful response. I will try to answer your other points in succeeding posts.
Is it a violation of Scripture? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.
 
Is it a violation of Scripture? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.
Nicea,
We have to take scripture as true and non-contradictory. Jesus is the only personage in the Bible who was called sinless. He was given the Holy Spirit without measure, was born of a virgin mother by the Holy Spirit, and was the Son of God incarnate.

Mary , on the other hand, was born of fallen human parents, needed a Savior and was not esteemed as highly as John the Baptist…The claim of her sinlessness and immaculate conception not only has no basis in scripture.but contradicts it as well. So,one cannot argue for her exception because there is scriptural evidence to the contrary for such a claim.

Your point about when one is considered a sinner is an interesting one, because the Bible defines sin as the transgression of the Law ( in thought as well as deed)

It could be argued that children before the age of accountability (whatever age that might be) cannot be held accountable for transgressing the law. And what about children whose parents aborted them? What will be their ultimate fate? We do not know the answers to these questions for God has not revealed them, but we can rest in the assurance that God’s justice is perfect (Job 37:23) But we do know that Mary and every other person born of human parents and who have reached the age of accountability have sinned. The Bible is clear on this, and we should not be disputing the accuracy of scripture.

The Bible is all about Jesus and what he has done for us. He alone gave His life for a ransom, and only He is the mediator between God and man. As he said of the scriptures " they are they which testify of me. " (John 5:339) Our salvation is possible only through Jesus. All other Bible persons including John the Baptist and Mary are without standing. They can be admired, but should not be, revered, prayed to or worshiped. That honor belongs to Jesus alone…

Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
 
Jesus is the only personage in the Bible who was called sinless.
Not necessarily true. Adam and Eve, when they were first created, were without sin. There are even several instances in Scripture were people are called “blameless before God,” such as Elizabeth and her husband.
Mary, on the other hand, was born of fallen human parents,
According to your logic (i.e. Mary was a sinner because she was born of fallen human parents), Jesus also must have been a sinner. After all, He was born of a fallen human parent, according to you. It then logically follows that if Mary was a sinner, then Jesus would have inherited His mother’s fallen human nature also.
needed a Savior
Faulty logic. Mary needing a Savior does not rule out the possibility of her Immaculate Conception.
The claim of her sinlessness and immaculate conception not only has no basis in scripture.but contradicts it as well.
Not only is there logical support for the Immaculate Conception, but there is also scriptural support: Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28.

Logical support: It makes no logical sense as to why God would allow His only begotten Son to be conceived, carried, and birthed by a sinful woman. After all, Scripture makes it blatantly clear that God does not tolerate sin.

Genesis 3:15~ 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.

This is one of the first, if not the first, foretellings of Christ coming to redeem the world. As such, “the seed” being referred to is obviously Christ. Since Christ is God, it makes obvious sense that He is at enmity with the Devil; Jesus is like us in all ways except sin. However, this verse explicitly states that the seed’s mother is likewise at enmity with the Devil. Since the seed is a reference to Christ, logically the seed’s mother has to be a reference to Mary.

Who else can the woman be? Eve? Eve wasn’t at enmity with the Devil. After all, she gave into his tempting words, ate the forbidden fruit, and ultimately disobeyed God. Last time I checked, one cannot be at enmity with the Devil and give into his various temptations. Can the woman be Israel? No, because she wasn’t at enmity with the Devil; there was many a time where Israel turned away from God for her idols. Heck, the Jews even begged for God Himself to be crucified. In a similar way, the woman cannot be the Church because the Church is Jesus’ offspring, not the only way around.

Thus, the woman can only be referring to Mary. Since Mary is at enmity with the Devil, just like her son, she too must be without sin.

Luke 1:28~ And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

The Greek word used for “full of grace” is extremely important here. In Greek, the “full of grace” used in Luke 1:28 is rendered as kecharitomene. This word is a perfect passive participle form of the Greek word charitoo, which means “to fill or endow with grace.” Because of the form of the word, the sentence indicates that Mary was full of grace from her past, and continues to be full of grace well into the present time.

Oh, and let’s not forget the astounding wisdom of the Early Church Fathers…

He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption. (Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me, ante 253 C. E.)

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one. (Origen, Homily 1, 244 C. E.)

Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. (Ambrose, Sermon 22:30, 388 C. E.)
So,one cannot argue for her exception because there is scriptural evidence to the contrary for such a claim.
There is no scriptural evidence to suggest that Mary was a sinner. Sorry, but your “all have sinned” text-proof doesn’t qualify as evidence. As Nicea said, there are exceptions to the “all” used in Romans: Jesus, children below the age of reason/accountability, and people who are afflicted with a child-like mindset because of a mental disorder. Therefore, the “all” used in Romans does not indicate an absolute, no exceptions statement; the “all” refers to “many,” not every single person.

There’s also a logical problem with how you’re interpreting the word “all” in Romans. You’re taking it to mean it’s an absolute statement. In other words, there are no exceptions. If that was true, then you logically MUST conclude that Jesus was also a sinner. No exceptions means there are no exceptions, and since Christ was perfectly human, then He would have inherited a sinful nature from His mother (if she had a sinful nature, which she does not).
Your point about when one is considered a sinner is an interesting one, because the Bible defines sin as the transgression of the Law ( in thought as well as deed)
Exactly, which is why children below the age of reason cannot sin. Pray tell, how can a two-year-old child commit a “transgression of the Law (in thought as well as [in] deed)” if he or she doesn’t even know what the Law is or how it works? Scripture even says that Jacob and Esau did not commit any good or evil when they were children. Why? Because they didn’t understand what good or evil even means.
 
The Bible is clear on this, and we should not be disputing the accuracy of scripture.
As I have just demonstarted, Scripture is quite clear on Mary being sinless. It was even a belief held by the Early Church Fathers, and most of the Reformers.

Further, we’re not disputing the accuracy of Scripture; we’re disputing the accuracy of your interpretations of Scripture.
and only He is the mediator between God and man.
The verse you’re referring to does not describe Christ as our ONLY mediator; it describes Him as our ONE mediator. For example, Scripture explicitly commands us to pray for one another. Praying is an act of intercession/mediation. Therefore, how can Christ be our ONLY mediator when there are billions of Christians intercessing and mediating for us with their prayers?
That honor belongs to Jesus alone…
Latria, or worship and adoration, is due to God alone. Dulia, or honor, is due to every single human being. After all, we are all made in God’s image and likeness. Therefore, we are worthy of honor from our humans, as Scripture attest to.

Further, there is no scriptural evidence that says we are to pray to Christ alone.
 
Not necessarily true. Adam and Eve, when they were first created, were without sin. There are even several instances in Scripture were people are called “blameless before God,” such as Elizabeth and her husband.

According to your logic (i.e. Mary was a sinner because she was born of fallen human parents), Jesus also must have been a sinner. After all, He was born of a fallen human parent, according to you. It then logically follows that if Mary was a sinner, then Jesus would have inherited His mother’s fallen human nature also.

Faulty logic. Mary needing a Savior does not rule out the possibility of her Immaculate Conception.

Not only is there logical support for the Immaculate Conception, but there is also scriptural support: Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28.

Logical support: It makes no logical sense as to why God would allow His only begotten Son to be conceived, carried, and birthed by a sinful woman. After all, Scripture makes it blatantly clear that God does not tolerate sin.

Genesis 3:15~ 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.

This is one of the first, if not the first, foretellings of Christ coming to redeem the world. As such, “the seed” being referred to is obviously Christ. Since Christ is God, it makes obvious sense that He is at enmity with the Devil; Jesus is like us in all ways except sin. However, this verse explicitly states that the seed’s mother is likewise at enmity with the Devil. Since the seed is a reference to Christ, logically the seed’s mother has to be a reference to Mary.

Who else can the woman be? Eve? Eve wasn’t at enmity with the Devil. After all, she gave into his tempting words, ate the forbidden fruit, and ultimately disobeyed God. Last time I checked, one cannot be at enmity with the Devil and give into his various temptations. Can the woman be Israel? No, because she wasn’t at enmity with the Devil; there was many a time where Israel turned away from God for her idols. Heck, the Jews even begged for God Himself to be crucified. In a similar way, the woman cannot be the Church because the Church is Jesus’ offspring, not the only way around.

Thus, the woman can only be referring to Mary. Since Mary is at enmity with the Devil, just like her son, she too must be without sin.

Luke 1:28~ And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

The Greek word used for “full of grace” is extremely important here. In Greek, the “full of grace” used in Luke 1:28 is rendered as kecharitomene. This word is a perfect passive participle form of the Greek word charitoo, which means “to fill or endow with grace.” Because of the form of the word, the sentence indicates that Mary was full of grace from her past, and continues to be full of grace well into the present time.

Oh, and let’s not forget the astounding wisdom of the Early Church Fathers…

He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption. (Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me, ante 253 C. E.)

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one. (Origen, Homily 1, 244 C. E.)

Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. (Ambrose, Sermon 22:30, 388 C. E.)

There is no scriptural evidence to suggest that Mary was a sinner. Sorry, but your “all have sinned” text-proof doesn’t qualify as evidence. As Nicea said, there are exceptions to the “all” used in Romans: Jesus, children below the age of reason/accountability, and people who are afflicted with a child-like mindset because of a mental disorder. Therefore, the “all” used in Romans does not indicate an absolute, no exceptions statement; the “all” refers to “many,” not every single person.

There’s also a logical problem with how you’re interpreting the word “all” in Romans. You’re taking it to mean it’s an absolute statement. In other words, there are no exceptions. If that was true, then you logically MUST conclude that Jesus was also a sinner. No exceptions means there are no exceptions, and since Christ was perfectly human, then He would have inherited a sinful nature from His mother (if she had a sinful nature, which she does not).

Exactly, which is why children below the age of reason cannot sin. Pray tell, how can a two-year-old child commit a “transgression of the Law (in thought as well as [in] deed)” if he or she doesn’t even know what the Law is or how it works? Scripture even says that Jacob and Esau did not commit any good or evil when they were children. Why? Because they didn’t understand what good or evil even means.
👍👍
 
Mary, is the ARK OF THE COVENANT…Has anyone read the
.
agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Virgin%20Mary%20as%20the%20Ark%20of%20the%20New%20Covenant.htm

Link, in regards to Mary being the Ark of the covenant?

agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Virgin%20Mary%20and%20the%20Virgin%20Eve%20Contrasted.htm

Link, in regards to Mary being the NEW EVE?

agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Mary%20The%20Queen%20Mother%20of%20the%20New%20Davidic%20Kingdom.htm

Link, in regards to Mary being Queen of Heaven?

agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Did%20Jesus%20have%20Brothers%20and%20Sisters.htm

Link, in regards to Mary Ever Virgin?

you will see scriptural corralation, with these… In regards to Mary: Immaculate Conception… Scripture has proven that Mary is the New Eve, Ever Virgin, Queen of Heaven and Ark of the Covenant… Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, was THE PERFECT JEW, which means that he HONOURED HIS MOTHER AND FATHER!

I said, this also, in a previous post, that, honouring Mary, is also Christ centered… We, as Christians are to imitate Jesus… Jesus honoured our mother Mary… Therefore " ALL GENERATIIONS SHAL CALL ME BLESSED! May God bless each and everyone of you!
 
Nicea,
We have to take scripture as true and non-contradictory. Jesus is the only personage in the Bible who was called sinless. He was given the Holy Spirit without measure, was born of a virgin mother by the Holy Spirit, and was the Son of God incarnate.

Mary , on the other hand, was born of fallen human parents, needed a Savior and was not esteemed as highly as John the Baptist…The claim of her sinlessness and immaculate conception not only has no basis in scripture.but contradicts it as well. So,one cannot argue for her exception because there is scriptural evidence to the contrary for such a claim.

Your point about when one is considered a sinner is an interesting one, because the Bible defines sin as the transgression of the Law ( in thought as well as deed)

It could be argued that children before the age of accountability (whatever age that might be) cannot be held accountable for transgressing the law. And what about children whose parents aborted them? What will be their ultimate fate? We do not know the answers to these questions for God has not revealed them, but we can rest in the assurance that God’s justice is perfect (Job 37:23) But we do know that Mary and every other person born of human parents and who have reached the age of accountability have sinned. The Bible is clear on this, and we should not be disputing the accuracy of scripture.

The Bible is all about Jesus and what he has done for us. He alone gave His life for a ransom, and only He is the mediator between God and man. As he said of the scriptures " they are they which testify of me. " (John 5:339) Our salvation is possible only through Jesus. All other Bible persons including John the Baptist and Mary are without standing. They can be admired, but should not be, revered, prayed to or worshiped. That honor belongs to Jesus alone…

Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
The issue at hand has nothing to do with whether scripture contradicts itself or not. The problem lies with your interpretations of scripture and specific words. The problem with your understanding is that you are taking the word “all” to mean absolutely EVERYONE…no exceptions! If Paul meant it to be absolute,then Jesus Himself would be included because he is human and thus would fall into the “all” category. Likewise,you also have no scriptural proof at all that Mary was a sinner. Why? Because she needed a savior proves she was a sinner? Being without sin does no equate one does not need a Savior.
 
Phineas; said:
Nicea,
We have to take scripture as true and non-contradictory. Jesus is the only personage in the Bible who was called sinless…

Mary , on the other hand, was born of fallen human parents, needed a Savior and was not esteemed as highly as John the Baptist… So, one cannot argue for her exception because there is scriptural evidence to the contrary for such a claim.

Really? Where? Your John the Baptist claim is in error. The Early Fathers show this clearly.

Your position lacks understanding of some critical FACTS.
  1. The CC does teach that salvation is by and through J. C. Alone -Catechism #169
  2. Mary in an absolute sense is NOT essential to salvation BUT is of Extreme value as the “Intercessor par Excellence.”
  3. Because God is and MUST remain “Perfect” God could only be born through a “perfected” mother so He HAD TO PERFECT Mary. [time does not exist 4 God] Mary was God’s Choice; not Mary’s choice EXCEPT if full agreement with God’s Plan. It is an IMPOSSIBLE reality that God could permit God to be Incarnate of a sinful women!
  4. God can do ANY Good thing. Amen!
  5. We Do NOT “worship” Mary or Saints. We pray THROUGH them to God. WHY? They have merited to be in God’s Presence. They ADD there own prayers on-top of ours and then personally present to God for us.
It could be argued that children before the age of accountability (whatever age that might be) cannot be held accountable for transgressing the law. And what about children whose parents aborted them? But we do know that Mary and every other person born of human parents and who have reached the age of accountability have sinned. “ALL”] does not refer to Mary who by God’s choice is the exception. [see #3]
And what about John 3: 5? " Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
“man” here refers to ALL of humanity; again Mary exempted]
DR Bible explaination: “[5] Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19.”
The Bible is clear on this, and we should not be disputing the accuracy of scripture.
REALLY? What about the Primacy of Peter; The REAL Presence; Forgiveness of sin; & only One set of faith beliefs and Only One Church to name a few Protestant questioned biblical teachings? 🤷
All other Bible persons including John the Baptist and Mary are without standing. They can be admired, but should not be, revered, prayed to or worshiped.
REALLY? Have you NOT READ Luke. Ch. One? Vrs, 26-35 AND vrs. 43-55. What we Catholics Do is solidly Biblical!

My dear friend in Christ; while your opinion is highly valued; it is only that: YOUR personal opinion. 🙂

God Bless you,
pat /PJM
 
Phineas:
All other Bible persons including John the Baptist and Mary are without standing. They can be admired, but should not be, revered, prayed to or worshiped.
May you please provide one Catholic document in its 2,000 year history explicitly stating Catholics are to worship Mary or John the Baptist or Peter or Paul?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top