Positive Proof The Catholic Church Is The Only True Church

[ckempston]

They received that tradition of some version of “immaculate conception” from a non-canonical writing, if I recall? And, I believe, from a supposed Marian apparition.

Hardly “sacred tradition.”

I agree with you here. I have been looking for evidence from the ECFs on the Immaculate Conception, Mary’s freedom from actual sin, and the Assumption (because these are all tied together), and the evidence can only be called scant. The statements of the earliest fathers are simply repeating explicit statements from scripture. It’s not until the 4th and 5th centuries that we seem to see writers going beyond that.

Besides the lack of reference, I’d call these doctrines unnecessary at the least, even if some of the inferences (that you referred to in another post) are reasonable.

I’ve already pointed out elsewhere that just because you can make an inference, doesn’t mean that you should. In general, I’d tend to agree with your other statement regarding the Catholic church:

I find it to have far exceeded what Christ intended.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Mate,

I can concur with that. Reasonable, but not founded or necessary. it’s not that these doctrines are repulsive (bit to melodramatic for that word), but unfounded.

 

[ckempston]

Hi, ckempston

Quote:
Originally Posted by onenow1
Quote= onenow1 God is the greatest Doctor of all creation He can prevent sin in anyone he pleases.Do you believe Jesus Christ had no sin ?

Luke 1:
.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in [ALL] the commandments and ordinances of the Lord Blameless].

=ckempston, Well, the first passage is about Mary AND Joseph. :nope: So, anything you conclude about Mary from that passage you would also have to conclude about Joseph, which, I’m guessing that many people upheld the legal ordinances of the Old Testament.

=onenow1, This passage verse 6, is about Elizeabeth and Zechariah,not Joseph and Mary. By the way I personally believe John the Baptist was indeed free of sin also.

My bad for not looking at the referenced passage. We’re talking about Mary, though, so this passage still doesn’t help your position.

46 And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord.
How does someone soul spirit]>> Magnify the Lord with sin in their life ?

=onenow1, and your response to verse 46 is??

Since scripture is surely the word of God, verse 46, is no less so, and as I see it you place St. Paul in a higher position then God.

How do you figure I’ve placed Paul higher than God? That’s just ridiculous. Surely you are purposely mistaking my intent. Many people magnify the Lord without being free from sin. Your conclusion does not follow.

Proof positive of the Catholic Church being the one true Church is,not being able to find any other church there in antiquity, of course with the exception of the Orthodox, who do indeed have Apostolic Orders.

They have Apostolic Orders, and can trace their lineage directly to the Apostles, and yet they deny the primacy of Rome. Kind of a contradiction there, isn’t it? The church is made up of Christians, not clergy.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

46 And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord.
How does someone soul spirit]>> Magnify the Lord with sin in their life?

I hate to interject, as it wasn’t directed toward me, but I’d like to state that this is not even a weak argument for perpetual virginity- I’ve never heard it made. They word “magnify” simply means to “extol”, “praise.” Mary, the mother of God, is praising God.

magnify
c.1380, “to speak or act for the glory or honor (of someone or something),” from O.Fr. magnifier, from L. magnificare “esteem greatly, extol,” from magnificus “splendid” (see magnificence). Meaning of “use a telescope or microscope” is first attested 1665.

 

[nilofc]

GOD does not expect us to be perfect, we cannot be…

This is Very unblibical and goes against to what Jesus has commanded.

Jesus said…“Be Perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.”
Mt. 5:48

 

[nilofc]

This is not true. Eve had no original sin, but she sinned.

Mary, as the new Eve, was free to sin, but chose not to.

Well brother…it is obvious that he has a distorted view of what free will is. He thinks that having a free will is to have the capacity to choose sin while to follow God and be sinless is to take away freedom.

True Freedom is when you choose not to sin. To sin is to be under the clutches of the devil…so sinning is not freedom.

 

[joshua_b]

Sorry, not trying to change subjects, but it just came to mind as one subject that keeps me away from “The Only True Church.”

There is still the problem of Paul’s very explicit statement that “all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God.” How could that apply to Mary if she was free from Original and Actual sin?

Ok. Your argument is pretty convincing, except for the couple of objections I raised above. I’d like to hear your thoughts on those objections.

This verse is often brought up, and it is indeed a powerful verse. The first thing that comes to mind is that everyone makes an exception for Jesus (and, IMHO, they obviously should) but…why? If “all” truly means “all” then why are we making exceptions when no exceptions are stated ? Maybe not a very convincing argument, even by my own admission, but either “all” literally means “all” with no exceptions, or there are caveats.

That aside, I find the focus of this verse to be just plain missing the point (assuming you are quoting Romans 5:12).

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;** and so death passed upon all men,** for that all have sinned: (emphasis mine of course).

The ultimate point of this verse, as best I can tell, is that no human being is exempt from the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice. As I have explained, the Catholic Church does not hold Mary exempt from needing redeemed through Christ’s sacrifice. Therefore, all the linguistic hair-splitting aside, I fail to see personally how the Immaculate Conception is in conflict with this verse.

The reason I call it “linguistic hair-splitting” is because Scripture also tells us that “no one is righteous”, but there are many many passages that refer to individuals as being “righteous”. If “all means all”, then “no one” should also mean “no one”. We obviously allow that there must be more to it than a simple matter of fact literal interpretation of “no one is righteous”, otherwise Scripture would have to be at odds with itself, which Catholics as well as other Christians all proclaim is not possible. This is more of a personal opposition I have, as opposed to Church teaching. By my observation, it is logically and intellectually inconsistent to deny the possibility of the Immaculate Conception on the basis that “all have sinned”, but then defend the fact that many individuals were “righteous” according to Scripture with fancy exegesis and hermaneutics and theological diatribes to explain away the fact that Scripture tells us “no one is righteous”. Why does this principle apply to one verse and not the other ?

 

[joshua_b]

Sorry, not trying to change subjects, but it just came to mind as one subject that keeps me away from “The Only True Church.”

Jesus drank from the same cup as Judas. Is that not being in the presence of sin? Jesus was continually surrounded by sin during his earthly existence, so I would challenge the notion that Mary had to be sinless to keep Jesus “separate,” although admittedly, comparing drinking the same cup to having blood flow through you is a bit of a stretch. I’ll give you that. However, I wasn’t referring only to Mary’s freedom from Original Sin, but her lack of actual sin.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on those objections.

Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer for this one. I have often tried to figure out this one myself actually. Nothing unholy can enter the presence of God, yet God came to earth to physically exist among unholy humans (often choosing to be in the presence of the most visibly UNHOLY individuals in society). This is a conundrum that would apply to the grand mystery of God as He has revealed Himself to us; I don’t think this argument applies specifically against the Immaculate Conception.

 

[joshua_b]

Sorry, not trying to change subjects, but it just came to mind as one subject that keeps me away from “The Only True Church.”

Had to look it up, but I think this is a pretty open for interpretation type of passage as to what, exactly, the angel meant by “Hail Mary, full of Grace…” I will give you that this is a unique situation.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on those objections.

This is another one that I am not equipped to give a full and convincing defense of. I will further agree that there is a lot left for interpretation here. I have seen pages and pages of dialogue that parses the original Greek over and over again like it was being put through a blender, and have read exegesis ad nauseum over this single verse. I have no functional knowledge of ancient Greek, therefore nothing substanative on which to form my own opinions. All I can offer with the intellectual confidence to stand behind is the fact that “Hail” is not a standard greeting that is used in Scripture; it certainly brings connotations of power, royalty, exalted status and authority. (I am not saying that Mary IS any of those things, simply that those are the connotations brought by the language used).

 

[ckempston]

This verse is often brought up, and it is indeed a powerful verse. The first thing that comes to mind is that everyone makes an exception for Jesus (and, IMHO, they obviously should) but…why? If “all” truly means “all” then why are we making exceptions when no exceptions are stated ? Maybe not a very convincing argument, even by my own admission, but either “all” literally means “all” with no exceptions, or there are caveats.

I’m not a mathmetician, and have only a rudimentary understanding of set theory, but there are two sets in this statement:

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

Set 1: All
Set 2: God

In context, Jesus would be contained in Set 2, and Mary would be contained in Set 1.

I stick to my contention that Jesus justifiably gets an exception for being a member of the set “God” while Mary would not.

That aside, I find the focus of this verse to be just plain missing the point (assuming you are quoting Romans 5:12).

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;** and so death passed upon all men,** for that all have sinned: (emphasis mine of course).

The ultimate point of this verse, as best I can tell, is that no human being is exempt from the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice. As I have explained, the Catholic Church does not hold Mary exempt from needing redeemed through Christ’s sacrifice. Therefore, all the linguistic hair-splitting aside, I fail to see personally how the Immaculate Conception is in conflict with this verse.

Actually, I’m quoting Romans 3:23.

Romans 3:22-24 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Paul makes no qualification here. However, in the preceding verses (which you reference below) he does make some qualification to his statement (see below).

As far as why my explanation over yours, I would appeal to Occam’s Razor and, as I have explained below, the fact that “all have sinned” is a plain statement, whereas “no one is righteous” is quoting the OT and could easily be taken hyperbolically. This explanation requires much less mental gymnastics than the Catholic one, and to me, seems more cohesive and consistent.

The reason I call it “linguistic hair-splitting” is because Scripture also tells us that “no one is righteous”, but there are many many passages that refer to individuals as being “righteous”. If “all means all”, then “no one” should also mean “no one”. We obviously allow that there must be more to it than a simple matter of fact literal interpretation of “no one is righteous”, otherwise Scripture would have to be at odds with itself, which Catholics as well as other Christians all proclaim is not possible. This is more of a personal opposition I have, as opposed to Church teaching. By my observation, it is logically and intellectually inconsistent to deny the possibility of the Immaculate Conception on the basis that “all have sinned”, but then defend the fact that many individuals were “righteous” according to Scripture with fancy exegesis and hermaneutics and theological diatribes to explain away the fact that Scripture tells us “no one is righteous”. Why does this principle apply to one verse and not the other ?

I’ll have to throw the “in context” charge right back atcha:

In the passage where Paul says, “no one is righteous” he is quoting Psalms and Ecclesiastes, which are both poetry and inclined to hyperbole. Paul qualifies this statement in Romans 3:19-20. The same cannot be said, however, of 3:23.

 

[joshua_b]

Happy Monday. I responded to your PM, and I’ll respond to your lengthier post shortly.

What I mean is that we (and many other “protestant” denominations) have many “traditions” in my own church. Most of these “traditions” have little, if any, basis in the Bible. Let’s take the mainline Church of Christ denomination’s (to which my church is closely related) demand that instrumental music not be used in worship services. There is no biblical basis for doing this, yet anyone who does otherwise is condemned. The Church of Christ, historically, split into two denominations over this (another issue altogether).

So, what I mean is, the use of instrumental music in worship service actually became a litmus test for one’s Christianity, which is totally ridiculous. Use of instrumental music is a personal preference and a matter of opinion, not a salvation issue (much akin to prohibition of alcohol in some denominations).

This is an observation I have had about SOME (certainly not all) non-Catholic faith traditions. I don’t see this in the Catholic Church (although I am quite certain it exists rampantly in some parishes), and it is certainly NOT official teaching. The Catholic Church requires ascent of the mind, which means that basically Catholics can not knowingly and openly dissent from Church teaching. My obligation as a Catholic is to attempt to understand the teachings of the Church that I disagree with through prayer, Scripture, contemplation and study. There is a saying that “a million doubts does not equal disbelief”. This is what applies to doctrine. In matters of discipline, I am free to disagree with principle, so long as I remain in obedience.

 

[ckempston]

This is another one that I am not equipped to give a full and convincing defense of. I will further agree that there is a lot left for interpretation here. I have seen pages and pages of dialogue that parses the original Greek over and over again like it was being put through a blender, and have read exegesis ad nauseum over this single verse. I have no functional knowledge of ancient Greek, therefore nothing substanative on which to form my own opinions. All I can offer with the intellectual confidence to stand behind is the fact that “Hail” is not a standard greeting that is used in Scripture; it certainly brings connotations of power, royalty, exalted status and authority. (I am not saying that Mary IS any of those things, simply that those are the connotations brought by the language used).

I’d have to disagree with you that it’s specially used for Mary after a look in a lexicon. For instance, it is used as a greeting here:

James 1:1 James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: **Greetings. **

Same word the Angel uses to address Mary.

The word itself is used pretty often in scripture, though not strictly as a salutation. That being said, I’d have a hard time assigning any deep/special meaning.

 

[joshua_b]

I’m not a mathmetician, and have only a rudimentary understanding of set theory, but there are two sets in this statement:

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

Set 1: All
Set 2: God

In context, Jesus would be contained in Set 2, and Mary would be contained in Set 1.

I stick to my contention that Jesus justifiably gets an exception for being a member of the set “God” while Mary would not.

Actually, I’m quoting Romans 3:23.

Romans 3:22-24 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Paul makes no qualification here. However, in the preceding verses (which you reference below) he does make some qualification to his statement (see below).

As far as why my explanation over yours, I would appeal to Occam’s Razor and, as I have explained below, the fact that “all have sinned” is a plain statement, whereas “no one is righteous” is quoting the OT and could easily be taken hyperbolically. This explanation requires much less mental gymnastics than the Catholic one, and to me, seems more cohesive and consistent.

I’ll have to throw the “in context” charge right back atcha:

In the passage where Paul says, “no one is righteous” he is quoting Psalms and Ecclesiastes, which are both poetry and inclined to hyperbole. Paul qualifies this statement in Romans 3:19-20. The same cannot be said, however, of 3:23.

This is an intelligent and cohesive response.I understand your logic, and agree with you that 1. Jesus SHOULD be excluded from the statement “all have sinned”, and that 2.there is a fair amount of hyperbole in the statement that “no one is righteous”. But, I still remain stuck in the fact that if “all means all” then “no one” should mean “no one”. All of that aside, Romans 3:23, when put in context (which you have quoted as such) still reads to me exactly like Romans 5:12. The whole point of the statement “all have sinned” is to reiterate the fact that no one is exempt from the need for the propetiation of Christ’s sacrifice. The only way to be declared righteous in the eyes of God is through the sacrifice of Jesus, and there is nothing we as humans can ever do to deserve this gift from God. Even if you were to take out the statement “all have sinned” (which of course I am not saying SHOULD be the case, because the Word of God is very clear on what happens to people who add to it or take away from it), the entire meaning of the passage would remain completely unaffected, and not even the Catholic Church is denying that it is only through the sacrifice of Jesus that Mary was redeemed, and that there is absolutely nothing about Mary that entitled her to this grace of God.

 

[ckempston]

This is an intelligent and cohesive response.I understand your logic, and agree with you that 1. Jesus SHOULD be excluded from the statement “all have sinned”, and that 2.there is a fair amount of hyperbole in the statement that “no one is righteous”. But, I still remain stuck in the fact that if “all means all” then “no one” should mean “no one”. All of that aside, Romans 3:23, when put in context (which you have quoted as such) still reads to me exactly like Romans 5:12. The whole point of the statement “all have sinned” is to reiterate the fact that no one is exempt from the need for the propetiation of Christ’s sacrifice. The only way to be declared righteous in the eyes of God is through the sacrifice of Jesus, and there is nothing we as humans can ever do to deserve this gift from God. Even if you were to take out the statement “all have sinned” (which of course I am not saying SHOULD be the case, because the Word of God is very clear on what happens to people who add to it or take away from it), the entire meaning of the passage would remain completely unaffected, and not even the Catholic Church is denying that it is only through the sacrifice of Jesus that Mary was redeemed, and that there is absolutely nothing about Mary that entitled her to this grace of God.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

As for your other response regarding “ascent of mind,” that pretty much blows all chances of me being Catholic. I knowingly and openly dissent from many teachings of the Catholic church, and I’m afraid that I could not, in good conscience, revert and yet continue in my disagreement. That would be a pretty illogical position: "I believe in the authority of the Magesterium…except for when it says… "

 

[joshua_b]

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

As for your other response regarding “ascent of mind,” that pretty much blows all chances of me being Catholic. I knowingly and openly dissent from many teachings of the Catholic church, and I’m afraid that I could not, in good conscience, revert and yet continue in my disagreement. That would be a pretty illogical position: "I believe in the authority of the Magesterium…except for when it says… "

And it is well and proper that you shouldn’t openly profess to be of a faith with which you do not agree.

My job is not to win converts, that is the role of the Holy Spirit. All I can do is present the teachings of the Church to the best of my ability (which I admit to be quite subpar to many others).

 

[ckempston]

And it is well and proper that you shouldn’t openly profess to be of a faith with which you do not agree.

My job is not to win converts, that is the role of the Holy Spirit. All I can do is present the teachings of the Church to the best of my ability (which I admit to be quite subpar to many others).

Well, we seem to have wrapped up that discussion.

Do we have any loose ends? I do have a question regarding non-Catholics and mortal/venial sins and confession that I would like to get some Catholic perspective on. It’s somewhat related to the “Only True Church” subject, but I’d hate to go too far off track, though I think this thread has been sufficiently hijacked already. Should I just start another thread?

 

[joshua_b]

I had to laugh at this because at this point I don’t know. I say start a new thread, if for no other reason than to garner some more involvement, because I think every one else has pretty much abandoned this one.

 

[ryanoneil]

Actually, I’m quoting Romans 3:23.

Romans 3:22-24 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

I hope you don’t mind if I comment.

The word “all” in Rom 3:23 is the same word used in 1 Cor 15:22 where Paul says “all” have died. But we know that Enoch and Elijah did not die; they were assumed into heaven.

Paul also says in Rom 5:19 that “many” were made sinners. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.

So, when Paul says “all” in regard to sinners, it appears he means “many” and not every single one.

 

[joshua_b]

I hope you don’t mind if I comment.

The word “all” in Rom 3:23 is the same word used in 1 Cor 15:22 where Paul says “all” have died. But we know that Enoch and Elijah did not die; they were assumed into heaven.

Paul also says in Rom 5:19 that “many” were made sinners. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.

So, when Paul says “all” in regard to sinners, it appears he means “many” and not every single one.

I have never heard this before. Would you care to go into this in a little more detail ? What word is used? Can you explain the Greek to me, because if you have read any of my posts you can plainly see that I barely have a working mastery of English.

 

[ckempston]

I have never heard this before. Would you care to go into this in a little more detail ? What word is used? Can you explain the Greek to me, because if you have read any of my posts you can plainly see that I barely have a working mastery of English.

Ironically enough, this is a defense Protestants often use to support various heretical doctrines. All means all. It has to, otherwise, all kinds of absurdities result:

The word “all” in Rom 3:23 is the same word used in 1 Cor 15:22 where Paul says “all” have died. But we know that Enoch and Elijah did not die; they were assumed into heaven.

It refers to spiritual death/separation from God; the same that Adam and Eve experienced “on that very day.” Paul was speaking to living people, yet he said that they had died. He was clearly speaking of spiritual separation from God, and not physical death. All have died.

Paul also says in Rom 5:19 that “many” were made sinners. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.

You’ve taken the verse out of context, I’m afraid. Paul says:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Take note of the article preceding “many.” It literally says, “this many” or “this multitude”, referring to an antecedent already noted in the passage. The antecedent is “all men.” The meaning of the passage is clearly:

…through one man’s disobedience this multitude of all men were made sinners.

The other problem with your interpretation is that it would contradict the doctrine of Original Sin. If all doesn’t mean all, it means that some people are not affected by Original Sin. I doubt you’ll be willing to admit that’s the case.

So, when Paul says “all” in regard to sinners, it appears he means “many” and not every single one.

No, all means all. Here are a bunch of passages in Galatians that use the word “all”, and for illustration purposes, I have replaced all to fit the contention that it does not mean all. You will see clearly how ridiculous this position is:

Ga 1:2 and most of the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:

Ga 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "most of THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN

Ga 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED are most WHO DO NOT ABIDE BY most of THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM

Ga 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, "CURSED IS ALMOST EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE "–

Ga 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up MOST under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Ga 3:26 For you are mostly sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Ga 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are MOSTLY one in Christ Jesus.

Ga 4:1 Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at most of from a slave although he is owner of almost everything,

Ga 5:3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep MOST OF THE Law.

Ga 5:14 For almost the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF .”

Ga 6:6 The one who is taught the word is to share most good things with the one who teaches him.

Ga 6:10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to most of people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.