Positive Proof The Catholic Church Is The Only True Church

[joshua_b]

I think it’s self-evident that “the church” does not exist independent of believers. It is a lot like the word “fellowship.” It’s an abstract idea that describes what happens when Christians get together. That’s how I view “the church.” It meets many of the criteria that Catholics often say must be present: it’s visible, it can exercise authority, there is structure and order within the church, but the church itself is not a structure.
What are the inconsistencies between your criteria and the Catholic criteria?

Luke 17:20-21 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”
Is this the only thing that the Scriptures record Jesus ever said about the Kingdom of God? I contend that there is Truth in your statement, but there is more to it than that.

Catholics seem to do the very thing that Jesus said should not be done: Ask people to point to the church and say, “there it is.”

If that is so, then I contend that the Apostles got it wrong right from the outset. If the Church was merely what I think you are saying jesus intended it to be, it would have been a lot easier for the early Christians to hide their christianity from those who persecuted them for it.

I don’t think you can biblically support that “the church” is synonymous with ecclesiastical structure or authority of some kind of governance (in the sense of men “ruling” over one another). It still has not been answered why Jesus would tell Apostles, who were inspired and given authority directly from Christ, that they should take a matter before “the church” if they and another brother were not able to resolve it. (Mt 18:17)

I had to read this passage again, and saw it for the first time in a light that I had never seen it before. Jesus starts in Mt 15, by saying “If your brother sins agains you…”. The groundwork for this whole passage in context is that the “brother” is WRONG. This passage is not speaking of disagreement between two men, but of one who is clearly in error, by my reading of the text. This can further be inferenced as Jesus continues to say “If he listens to you…”, which again gives the impression that the “brother” has no argument in his defense, and needs admonishment. Jesus then goes on to state, "…if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ Again, the context puts forth the assumption that the brother is clearly wrong, and his refusal to submit to the correction of the Church (via the Apostles, whom you yourself pointed out were the recipients of these words) must be resolved, preferrably “off the record”. If this is not effective, then, Jesus says "tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. " The Church is the final authority. This makes no allusion to the Church as an arbiter, it speaks to the Church as a clear authority to declare someone as wrong. The Catholic understanding of Church is the collection of all of the bishops in this case, in visible unity with one another (yes “Church” means much much more, but that specific element of it would certainly apply in this passage). This is further supported with the very next statement of Jesus in verse 18. “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[c]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.” Verse 18 is where the Catholic notion of Church authority is really driven to point. I know that there are alternate explainations of “binding and loosing”, but none of them really seem to make any logical sense to me in the context that we see this phrase come up anywhere in Scripture.

If anything, from that passage, you would conclude that the authority structure goes:

Individuals → Leaders → The Church (being defined as members assembled together).

 

[joshua_b]

Thanks. Not dismissing; I honestly didn’t know what the answer was. If that’s the case, then that’s no small amount of “required” belief. I’ve been meaning to read the whole thing from beginning to end, but usually when I look stuff up from the Table Of Contents, I don’t find much that I disagree with.

However, I do know of a couple things that I definitely disagree with that are in there, such as the existence of, and need for, purgatory and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, along with Mary’s perpetual virginity (which I’m not sure if that’s in there, but I know the Immaculate Conception is).

We can discuss these specific topics in another thread or on PM if necessary. I’m just pointing out that there’s quite a bit of very specific, very technical stuff, that’s required of Catholics to believe.

I am open to discussing any of those topics with you in whatever manner you prefer. I will gladly (and charitably) respond to any pms as well as eagerly participate in any thread you may start on the subject.

It is a very long and seemingly technical collection of belief, but, I offer that if the Catholic Church is truly the Church that would be led into ALL Truth, wouldn’t it stand to reason that it’s teachings would be as rich and complex and (dare I say), almost daunting) as the God who has revealed them?

 

[ckempston]

What are the inconsistencies between your criteria and the Catholic criteria?

To give a short answer, the hierarchical structure.

Is this the only thing that the Scriptures record Jesus ever said about the Kingdom of God? I contend that there is Truth in your statement, but there is more to it than that.

Certainly not, but it is true, nonetheless. If you won’t point to the church and say, “there it is,” that’s a pretty clear indication that it’s not at all like a corporation.

If that is so, then I contend that the Apostles got it wrong right from the outset. If the Church was merely what I think you are saying jesus intended it to be, it would have been a lot easier for the early Christians to hide their christianity from those who persecuted them for it.

If you can’t hide your Christianity (I don’t think you should), then how could you hide the church? I’m not sure I’m following you here.

I had to read this passage again, and saw it for the first time in a light that I had never seen it before. Jesus starts in Mt 15, by saying “If your brother sins agains you…”. The groundwork for this whole passage in context is that the “brother” is WRONG. This passage is not speaking of disagreement between two men, but of one who is clearly in error, by my reading of the text. This can further be inferenced as Jesus continues to say “If he listens to you…”, which again gives the impression that the “brother” has no argument in his defense, and needs admonishment. Jesus then goes on to state, "…if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ Again, the context puts forth the assumption that the brother is clearly wrong, and his refusal to submit to the correction of the Church (via the Apostles, whom you yourself pointed out were the recipients of these words) must be resolved, preferrably “off the record”. If this is not effective, then, Jesus says "tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. " The Church is the final authority. This makes no allusion to the Church as an arbiter, it speaks to the Church as a clear authority to declare someone as wrong. The Catholic understanding of Church is the collection of all of the bishops in this case, in visible unity with one another (yes “Church” means much much more, but that specific element of it would certainly apply in this passage). This is further supported with the very next statement of Jesus in verse 18. “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[c]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.” Verse 18 is where the Catholic notion of Church authority is really driven to point. I know that there are alternate explainations of “binding and loosing”, but none of them really seem to make any logical sense to me in the context that we see this phrase come up anywhere in Scripture.

I agree, the brother is clearly in the wrong. I also agree that the authority of an Apostle in the flesh was not enough to convince this wrong brother, but that is not the end of the attempt to correct. What you seem to be saying is put him before more “apostles,” where I see Jesus saying to take him before “regular joe” Christians assembled together. Honestly, I can’t see a strong argument for one or the other position. Maybe it is nothing more than an outline of dealing with sin: try to rebuke privately, if that doesn’t work, try it in a small group, if that doesn’t work, then try it publicly; failing all that, put him out of the fellowship.

 

[ckempston]

I am open to discussing any of those topics with you in whatever manner you prefer. I will gladly (and charitably) respond to any pms as well as eagerly participate in any thread you may start on the subject.

It is a very long and seemingly technical collection of belief, but, I offer that if the Catholic Church is truly the Church that would be led into ALL Truth, wouldn’t it stand to reason that it’s teachings would be as rich and complex and (dare I say), almost daunting) as the God who has revealed them?

Complexity is easier for me to overcome than the contradictions (whether actually real or only apparent) that I see. Thanks for the invitation to discuss these subjects. I’ll read what I can on my own in the Catechism and may start a thread or PM you.

 

[joshua_b]

To give a short answer, the hierarchical structure.

Fair enough. My response is that the hierarchical structure such as we see in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not outlined in detail in Scripture because there was no need to do so by the writers of the New Testament. The first word of the first Gospel was penned decades after Jesus resurrection. The Church, and it’s structure had long been established. Most of the New Testament was written to established Churches already under the authority of ordained bishops. There was no practical need to document any of this, and it was not relevant to the message intended for the recipients. The Gospels were written to give testimony to Christ; in the first or second century anyone moved by the Holy Spirit to seek Christ would have had no place to go other than the Church. I could pose an argument (not a strong one perhaps, but an argument none the less) that the lack of reference to a hierarchy is in itself an argument to it’s existence, because the New Testament is surprisingly silent on instruction to “startup Churches”. If Christianity was flourishing and growing so rapidly the first 3 centuries after Christ, and this decentralized, loosely affiliated congregational model was really what was intended (and what occured), would it not have been important that those fledgling churches be given copious guidance and instruction on how to establish themselves and guide their congregations so as to remain “unified” with one another ?

Certainly not, but it is true, nonetheless. If you won’t point to the church and say, “there it is,” that’s a pretty clear indication that it’s not at all like a corporation.

If you can’t hide your Christianity (I don’t think you should), then how could you hide the church? I’m not sure I’m following you here.
This is more of a concept and theory I hold, with nothing more to base this on than what seems to be common sense (at least to me). I humbly request that I be allowed to get back with you when I have been able to effectively formulate an articulation of my thought process here.

I agree, the brother is clearly in the wrong. I also agree that the authority of an Apostle in the flesh was not enough to convince this wrong brother, but that is not the end of the attempt to correct. What you seem to be saying is put him before more “apostles,” where I see Jesus saying to take him before “regular joe” Christians assembled together. Honestly, I can’t see a strong argument for one or the other position. Maybe it is nothing more than an outline of dealing with sin: try to rebuke privately, if that doesn’t work, try it in a small group, if that doesn’t work, then try it publicly; failing all that, put him out of the fellowship.

The main thing that distinguishes this as an indication of the authority vested in the hierarchy of the Church as opposed to “regular joe” Christians is again, the “binding and loosing”. This is not a casual term. This concept is something that is all too often casually overlooked and minimized. I suggest that you seriously research the concept of binding and loosing from a Jewish perspective in historical context.

 

[Shai22]

However, I do know of a couple things that I definitely disagree with that are in there, such as the existence of, and need for, purgatory and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, along with Mary’s perpetual virginity (which I’m not sure if that’s in there, but I know the Immaculate Conception is).

We can discuss these specific topics in another thread or on PM if necessary. I’m just pointing out that there’s quite a bit of very specific, very technical stuff, that’s required of Catholics to believe.

Regarding purgatory; There is the underworld, the universe, and heaven above the universe. GOD teaches that there is a spirit within each mortal body. When the mortal dies, the spirit is judged by GOD [heart, mind, behavior] the spirit either returns to GOD or remains in the universe. [This is why there are ghosts]
so the universe can be looked at as a purgatory [holding place]. These spirits always have the opportunity of asking for forgiveness and returning to GOD.

1. Immaculate Conception It’s a true teaching, it is scriptural.
   GOD chose to send the prodigal son to earth to show mortal man that through his example they can live faithfully through persecution and endure to the end.
2. Perpetual virginity, is not a scriptural teaching, as it goes against the teaching of Marriage.

 

[ckempston]

Fair enough. My response is that the hierarchical structure such as we see in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not outlined in detail in Scripture because there was no need to do so by the writers of the New Testament. The first word of the first Gospel was penned decades after Jesus resurrection. The Church, and it’s structure had long been established. Most of the New Testament was written to established Churches already under the authority of ordained bishops. There was no practical need to document any of this, and it was not relevant to the message intended for the recipients. The Gospels were written to give testimony to Christ; in the first or second century anyone moved by the Holy Spirit to seek Christ would have had no place to go other than the Church. I could pose an argument (not a strong one perhaps, but an argument none the less) that the lack of reference to a hierarchy is in itself an argument to it’s existence, because the New Testament is surprisingly silent on instruction to “startup Churches”. If Christianity was flourishing and growing so rapidly the first 3 centuries after Christ, and this decentralized, loosely affiliated congregational model was really what was intended (and what occured), would it not have been important that those fledgling churches be given copious guidance and instruction on how to establish themselves and guide their congregations so as to remain “unified” with one another ?

I find your argument from silence to be pretty reasonable.

This is more of a concept and theory I hold, with nothing more to base this on than what seems to be common sense (at least to me). I humbly request that I be allowed to get back with you when I have been able to effectively formulate an articulation of my thought process here.

Gladly.

The main thing that distinguishes this as an indication of the authority vested in the hierarchy of the Church as opposed to “regular joe” Christians is again, the “binding and loosing”. This is not a casual term. This concept is something that is all too often casually overlooked and minimized. I suggest that you seriously research the concept of binding and loosing from a Jewish perspective in historical context.

I have actually looked at the “binding and loosing” concepts from past conversations here on Catholic Answers, and I found the concept pretty convincing. The problem I still have is with a couple things: was that power to bind and loose passed on? Not all gifts were passed on, even at the laying on of the Apostles hands. And would that not negate the fact that Jesus said the Apostles would be led into all truth? If things are still being revealed, then it would seem to me that Jesus was wrong, the Apostles were never led into all truth in the first century if truths are still being uncovered today.

 

[happilycatholic]

Joshua and ckempston:

---

You two have a really great diologue going here. Please do not take it off the thread. I think there is much to be learned here.

---

Thanks,

---

HC

 

[ckempston]

Regarding purgatory; There is the underworld, the universe, and heaven above the universe. GOD teaches that there is a spirit within each mortal body. When the mortal dies, the spirit is judged by GOD [heart, mind, behavior] the spirit either returns to GOD or remains in the universe. [This is why there are ghosts]
so the universe can be looked at as a purgatory [holding place]. These spirits always have the opportunity of asking for forgiveness and returning to GOD.

When a person dies, the spirit returns to God. Period. Ghosts, if they really exist, are likely demons in disguise.

1. Immaculate Conception It’s a true teaching, it is scriptural.
   GOD chose to send the prodigal son to earth to show mortal man that through his example they can live faithfully through persecution and endure to the end.

I think you’re confused here. The Immaculate Conception has to do with Mary being born free from sin. I’d challenge you, or anyone else, to provide a scripture that supports the Immaculate Conception.

1. Perpetual virginity, is not a scriptural teaching, as it goes against the teaching of Marriage.

I’d agree with you there. I find the arguments about Jesus’ “brothers” being other relatives to be not very convincing.

 

[joshua_b]

I find your argument from silence to be pretty reasonable.

Gladly.

I have actually looked at the “binding and loosing” concepts from past conversations here on Catholic Answers, and I found the concept pretty convincing. The problem I still have is with a couple things: was that power to bind and loose passed on? Not all gifts were passed on, even at the laying on of the Apostles hands. And would that not negate the fact that Jesus said the Apostles would be led into all truth? If things are still being revealed, then it would seem to me that Jesus was wrong, the Apostles were never led into all truth in the first century if truths are still being uncovered today.

Was the power to bind and loose passed on? That is indeed a very important and legitimate question. Scripture says nothing specifically to address this question. The belief of the Christians who were living the faith as handed to them by the Apostles, at the same time the New Testament scriptures were still being written certainly believed so. My answer is “yes” but requires a Catholic understanding to qualify it. The Catholic Church maintains that the entire deposit of faith is contained in Sacred Tradition (the faith as it was handed to the Apostles by Jesus, and taught successively from generation to generation), Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium. These are not separate, disassociated concepts, but are interdependent on one another for their very existence. Sacred Tradition can not exist independent of Scripture and the Magisterium. Scripture can not exist independent of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, and the Magisterium can not exist independent of Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition certainly affirms that these powers were passed on through Apostolic succession. The magisterium has never been recorded as not upholding this belief, and although scripture never addresses the question directly, when read in the light of Tradition and Magisterial teaching, Scripture does not contradict this. This answer is barely sufficient, I realize. I do not want to derail the thread on this point, or monopolize the discussion. If you want to discuss this in more detail I will be happy to do so elsewhere.

Does this negate the fact that Jesus said the Apostles would be led into all truth? Another valid and important question. The Catholic answer is, absolutely not, and there are several points to be made on this. The first is that the original twelve were the Magisterium of the Church. Jesus was indeed adressing them directly, but, as the living Magisterium as opposed to twelve individuals. This is certainly logical if the power given to the original twelve was intended to be passed on to their successors. The other thing is that it could be argued that the Apostles themselves WERE led into all Truth. The Church has had 2000 years to refine and clarify doctrines, and understand them more fully, and give them names like “transubstantiation” and “Immaculate Conception” and “trinity”, but the doctrines are not in any way alien or novel in concept to the collective Truth that was given to, and taught by, the Apostles.

 

[ckempston]

Was the power to bind and loose passed on? That is indeed a very important and legitimate question. Scripture says nothing specifically to address this question. The belief of the Christians who were living the faith as handed to them by the Apostles, at the same time the New Testament scriptures were still being written certainly believed so. My answer is “yes” but requires a Catholic understanding to qualify it. The Catholic Church maintains that the entire deposit of faith is contained in Sacred Tradition (the faith as it was handed to the Apostles by Jesus, and taught successively from generation to generation), Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium. These are not separate, disassociated concepts, but are interdependent on one another for their very existence. Sacred Tradition can not exist independent of Scripture and the Magisterium. Scripture can not exist independent of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, and the Magisterium can not exist independent of Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition certainly affirms that these powers were passed on through Apostolic succession. The magisterium has never been recorded as not upholding this belief, and although scripture never addresses the question directly, when read in the light of Tradition and Magisterial teaching, Scripture does not contradict this. This answer is barely sufficient, I realize. I do not want to derail the thread on this point, or monopolize the discussion. If you want to discuss this in more detail I will be happy to do so elsewhere.

I guess then my question becomes, why the binding/loosing and forgiveness of sins (those things which cannot be proven or seen), and not the other gifts of the Apostles, such as the ability to raise the dead, miraculously heal blindness, sickness, lameness, etc.? Not to assign malicious intent to anyone, but it seems awfully convenient that the only “powers” that are passed on are the ones that cannot be seen by any evidence.

Does this negate the fact that Jesus said the Apostles would be led into all truth? Another valid and important question. The Catholic answer is, absolutely not, and there are several points to be made on this. The first is that the original twelve were the Magisterium of the Church. Jesus was indeed adressing them directly, but, as the living Magisterium as opposed to twelve individuals. This is certainly logical if the power given to the original twelve was intended to be passed on to their successors. The other thing is that it could be argued that the Apostles themselves WERE led into all Truth. The Church has had 2000 years to refine and clarify doctrines, and understand them more fully, and give them names like “transubstantiation” and “Immaculate Conception” and “trinity”, but the doctrines are not in any way alien or novel in concept to the collective Truth that was given to, and taught by, the Apostles.

I’d say the 1st century church never really thought about homoousious or the Immaculate Conception, which is why I have a hard time saying belief in these things is necessary to be a Christian. Obviously, there was dissension in the early church regarding some seemingly “basic” things (The Arian heresy, for instance, and only for the sake of argument as I believe as Catholics do in this regard). The existence of the questions themselves at least suggests some things were not a clear-cut part of the “deposit of faith” handed down directly from the Apostles; otherwise, there wouldn’t have been any questions. In any case, is explaining how Jesus’ nature “works” simply a “clarification” or is it a “new teaching?” I guess that’s the real question here. This example doesn’t work perfectly, but hopefully my point is coming across.

 

[Shai22]

When a person dies, the spirit returns to God. Period. Ghosts, if they really exist, are likely demons in disguise.

I think you’re confused here. The Immaculate Conception has to do with Mary being born free from sin. I’d challenge you, or anyone else, to provide a scripture that supports the Immaculate Conception.

I’d agree with you there. I find the arguments about Jesus’ “brothers” being other relatives to be not very convincing.

You have to remember that GOD is a spirit. Some people call spirits ghosts. When GOD [Holy Spirit] or the Angels appear, they do not take on a mortal body, it’s an illusion, they are spirits. Not all spirits are demons.

The Immaculate conception is about Mary conceiving without intercourse, it has nothing to do with her be free from sin. She remained faithful to GOD which is why she was chosen. I’m not confused.

 

[joshua_b]

I guess then my question becomes, why the binding/loosing and forgiveness of sins (those things which cannot be proven or seen), and not the other gifts of the Apostles, such as the ability to raise the dead, miraculously heal blindness, sickness, lameness, etc.? Not to assign malicious intent to anyone, but it seems awfully convenient that the only “powers” that are passed on are the ones that cannot be seen by any evidence.
I do not have a definitive answer to this question, and it is a good one. I will admit that the coincidence is a little inconvenient for the Church. Appealing to Scripture, it is completely silent on “why” this would be the case. I will ascertain, and wholeheartedly believe that these things have not disappeared completely. The Catholic Church has linked to it’s members and clergy, certified miracles in every generation. By “certified” I mean events that have withstood intense and exhaustive scrutiny and offer absolutely no rational or natural explaination.

I’d say the 1st century church never really thought about homoousious or the Immaculate Conception, which is why I have a hard time saying belief in these things is necessary to be a Christian. Obviously, there was dissension in the early church regarding some seemingly “basic” things (The Arian heresy, for instance, and only for the sake of argument as I believe as Catholics do in this regard). The existence of the questions themselves at least suggests some things were not a clear-cut part of the “deposit of faith” handed down directly from the Apostles; otherwise, there wouldn’t have been any questions. In any case, is explaining how Jesus’ nature “works” simply a “clarification” or is it a “new teaching?” I guess that’s the real question here. This example doesn’t work perfectly, but hopefully my point is coming across.

I think I understand your point, and you are pretty accurate in your asessments. The 1st century Church probably didn’t concern themselves too much with the Immaculate Conception, because they were too busy concerning themselves with who Christ was, to be frank and honest. But, not officially defining or clarifying something does not mean it wasn’t understood as an article of faith. It is important to remember that most declarations and definitions are a direct response to a spreading heresy. It is also important to focus on what a declared doctrine actually ADDRESSES, not only what it says. A good example of this is transubstantiation. I guarantee that if you said that word to a 1st century Christian (even one of the original twelve), you would get no more than a puzzled look. Some anti-Catholics argue that since the word did not appear until 1215, that the Eucharist is a “Catholic invention”. Transubstantiation does nothing more than attempt to explain what was already believed by first century Apostolic Christianity, and that is the real Presence fo Christ in the Eucharist. The Magisterium leaves no room for mistake on the official Catholic teaching on this. The belief that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist is Sacred Tradition (an article of faith as taught by the Apostles); they did not know the word “transubstantiation”, but they KNEW that was literally the body and blood of Christ. Scripture (especially in light of Magisterial teaching and Sacred Tradition) gives very strong witness to the fact that Jesus taught this exactly as the Church understands and teaches it. Furthermore, secular historical witness verifies that this was indeed what was believed and practiced by the 1st century Church. The concept has always been there and been taught; it was just never assigned a specific word prior to 1215. Your concern and doubt of other doctrines of the faith are certainly understandable. This harkens back to the deposit of faith consisting of Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium. For many of these doctrines, they can only be understood in the full context of the deposit of faith (all 3 elements). I chose “transubstantiation” and the belief of Real Presence, because it is the easiest to illustrate from all angles.

 

[joshua_b]

The Immaculate conception is about Mary conceiving without intercourse, it has nothing to do with her be free from sin. She remained faithful to GOD which is why she was chosen. I’m not confused.

Sorry, but you are wrong on this. The Immaculate Conception is the proclaimation that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin at her conception, through a special application of God’s grace, so that she could be fit to fulfill her pre-destined purpose of giving birth to Jesus.

 

[Shai22]

To Joshua

GOD gave everyone Free Will, including Mary, and Jesus. Every human being is gifted with it.

To say that GOD positioned Mary to be free of sin, is saying that HE took her free will from her, which is something HE wouldn’t do. The reason being is then people would be able to say that GOD forced her and this is not the case, she willingly accepted to give birth to Jesus.

The Apostles were faithful and GOD didn’t take their free will. They did it willingly

GOD wants us to choose to love HIM, not be forced. GOD has more faith in us than what you accepting. Job is a perfect example of this.

 

[Darktiger]

To Joshua

GOD gave everyone Free Will, including Mary, and Jesus. Every human being is gifted with it.

Agreed!

To say that GOD positioned Mary to be free of sin, is saying that HE took her free will from her, which is something HE wouldn’t do. The reason being is then people would be able to say that GOD forced her and this is not the case, she willingly accepted to give birth to Jesus.

Mary in no way lost her free will as a result of the Immaculate Conception. This is simply the doctrine that she was preserved from **Original sin **and its effects it says nothing about how she lived out her life. We do as Catholics believe that she did not in fact sin but this was a result of her faithfulness to God’s will for her and her freely choosing it. Hope this helps to clarify it a litte.

The Apostles were faithful and GOD didn’t take their free will. They did it willingly

GOD wants us to choose to love HIM, not be forced. GOD has more faith in us than what you accepting. Job is a perfect example of this.

 

[ckempston]

I do not have a definitive answer to this question, and it is a good one. I will admit that the coincidence is a little inconvenient for the Church. Appealing to Scripture, it is completely silent on “why” this would be the case. I will ascertain, and wholeheartedly believe that these things have not disappeared completely. The Catholic Church has linked to it’s members and clergy, certified miracles in every generation. By “certified” I mean events that have withstood intense and exhaustive scrutiny and offer absolutely no rational or natural explaination.

To be honest, after thinking about it more, I probably would be skeptical of any “miracles” that happened in front of my eyes, so I suppose this is really a non-issue for me anyway; more of a curiosity than anything.

I think I understand your point, and you are pretty accurate in your asessments. The 1st century Church probably didn’t concern themselves too much with the Immaculate Conception, because they were too busy concerning themselves with who Christ was, to be frank and honest. But, not officially defining or clarifying something does not mean it wasn’t understood as an article of faith. It is important to remember that most declarations and definitions are a direct response to a spreading heresy. It is also important to focus on what a declared doctrine actually ADDRESSES, not only what it says. A good example of this is transubstantiation. I guarantee that if you said that word to a 1st century Christian (even one of the original twelve), you would get no more than a puzzled look. Some anti-Catholics argue that since the word did not appear until 1215, that the Eucharist is a “Catholic invention”. Transubstantiation does nothing more than attempt to explain what was already believed by first century Apostolic Christianity, and that is the real Presence fo Christ in the Eucharist. The Magisterium leaves no room for mistake on the official Catholic teaching on this. The belief that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist is Sacred Tradition (an article of faith as taught by the Apostles); they did not know the word “transubstantiation”, but they KNEW that was literally the body and blood of Christ. Scripture (especially in light of Magisterial teaching and Sacred Tradition) gives very strong witness to the fact that Jesus taught this exactly as the Church understands and teaches it. Furthermore, secular historical witness verifies that this was indeed what was believed and practiced by the 1st century Church. The concept has always been there and been taught; it was just never assigned a specific word prior to 1215. Your concern and doubt of other doctrines of the faith are certainly understandable. This harkens back to the deposit of faith consisting of Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium. For many of these doctrines, they can only be understood in the full context of the deposit of faith (all 3 elements). I chose “transubstantiation” and the belief of Real Presence, because it is the easiest to illustrate from all angles.

I understand where you are coming from here. Part of the reason (along with conversations like this) that I have become more open to Catholicism, is that I ask myself the question, “What would I have done in their place, given the same situations?” I imagine my answer would often be the same. Even in my church movement, which has roots elsewhere, but itself is no more than 30 years old, we’ve developed ways of doing things that if you stray from them, your motives are seriously questioned. If we’ve developed dogmas (even if we don’t call them that) after 30 years, imagine what almost two millenia would result in.

My problem is developing one of those dogmas, however, to such an extent that it is the test of one’s Christianity.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Darktiger and welcome!! Just one observation in your post to Shai22. If you don"t mind my butting in ?

Quote= Onenow1, Adam and Eve had no sin,in the beginning and blessed Mary indeed was the new Eve a new beginning[CREATION ] by God,without sin as you have stated.

Originally Posted by Shai22
To Joshua

GOD gave everyone Free Will, including Mary, and Jesus. Every human being is gifted with it.

Quote= Darktiger Agreed!

Quote= Shai22. To say that GOD positioned Mary to be free of sin, is saying that HE took her free will from her, which is something HE wouldn’t do. The reason being is then people would be able to say that GOD forced her and this is not the case, she willingly accepted to give birth to Jesus.

Quote= Darktiger, Mary in no way lost her free will as a result of the Immaculate Conception. This is simply the doctrine that she was preserved from Original sin and its effects it says nothing about how she lived out her life. We do as Catholics believe that she did not in fact sin but this was a result of her faithfulness to God’s will for her and her freely choosing it. Hope this helps to clarify it a litte.

= onenow1, :thumbsup

 

[Shai22]

Darktiger:
Catholics believe in a tradition, and not from the teachings of GOD or Jesus Christ. This I agree with. However, Mary was a human being as all are who is born, there is no scripture to support that she was free from the sin of her ancestors. No human being is.

 

[ckempston]

Catholics believe in a tradition, and not from the teachings of GOD or Jesus Christ. This I agree with. However, Mary was a human being as all are who is born, there is no scripture to support that she was free from the sin of her ancestors. No human being is.

“For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

Either Paul didn’t know Mary was sinless, or this statement is simply untrue. Either way, Paul would have to be mistaken, which is hard to reconcile with him being an inspired, Spirit-guided writer.

The one exception to this passage is, of course, Jesus Christ, but that is because he IS God. Mary is not. There’s no Biblical way to justify her getting an exception no matter how special she was in God’s plan.