Sinless Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Christopher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no support for this assertion that Mary was “saved in a most excellent way from the moment of her conception” in Scripture. This is something the apostles never taught.
It’s like pointing out to someone that cars have wheels.
Mary was not a wineskin and is never referred to as such.
Yes, literalism is a good way to avoid a thoughtful response.
 
wmscott;4264311]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Is Sacred Tradition different than the written Scriptures?
wmscott;
Yes, but they do not contradict one another, there exists a close connection and communication between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring (God), in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end
What is an example or 2 of Sacred Tradition that is not mentioned in the Scriptures?
 
Is this listed somewhere offically as a Sacred Tradtion?
The Catechism, #120, list this:
120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.
As for Sunday worship, see #1166:
1166 “By a tradition handed down from the apostles which took its origin from the very day of Christ’s Resurrection, the Church celebrates the Paschal mystery every seventh day, which day is appropriately called the Lord’s Day or Sunday.”
EDIT: for Sunday worship, see also #2178
2178 This practice of the Christian assembly dates from the beginnings of the apostolic age. The Letter to the Hebrews reminds the faithful “not to neglect to meet together, as is the habit of some, but to encourage one another.”
Tradition preserves the memory of an ever-timely exhortation: Come to Church early, approach the Lord, and confess your sins, repent in prayer. . . . Be present at the sacred and divine liturgy, conclude its prayer and do not leave before the dismissal. . . . We have often said: “This day is given to you for prayer and rest. This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.”
 
Again - you didn’t answer the question I posed - because you can’t.

You retort with silly, smug remarks - intending to be humorous, I guess, but woefully missing the mark.
Just answer the question, Leeann:
Can you show me where the Catholic Church teaches that we raise Mary to divinity and that her Assumption was meant to parallel Jesus’ Ascencion?

Unless you can prove this, you’re just another one of the Catholic persecutors spoken of in Matt. 5:10-12 who blows hot air . . .
elvisman – :tsktsk: and to think that you have accused me of not understanding English at times in here!
You are either deliberately misinterpreting my posting below and presenting it, in a false manner or it is simply a mistake on your part.
I’ve highlighted and underlined the part that I think you are referring too.
Please re-read it again.
Now - how does this apply to the question you keep throwing out at me (the one above ) – when I am simply presenting a “list”, to assist in clarifying similarities? Based on that, why would you call me a liar with regards to what I posted, see post below.

Post # 510 elvisman
Unless you can show me where the Catholic Church teaches that we raise Mary to divinity and that her Assumption was meant to parallel Jesus’ Ascencion - yes, you’re liars. A liar is somebody who says things that aren’t true - not out of ignorance, but contempt or other ulterior motive.

Post elvisman is referring too #376

Hi Elvisman - I’m going to jump on the piggyback too!
Adam and Eve’s creation here as being sinless is irrelevant to this issue, as they were not birthed by other human beings, as Mary and Jesus were.

As for Enoch and Elijah – the mention of them is irrelevant to the comments made.

As for SIA not getting “this stuff” from scripture…it’s an “opinion” in relation to the topic of this thread….however it is worth noting that the similarities listed below, of the Marian Theology that the Catholic church is teaching as fact is also “not from scripture.” If clarity from scripture is now of importance to you, see below.

Mary


Born without sin (not clearly defined in scripture)

Sinless (not clearly defined in scripture)

Assumption (not clearly defined in scripture)

Queen (not clearly defined in scripture)

Preached about by Jesus and Apostles (no where in scripture)

Jesus

Born without sin (clearly defined in scripture)

Sinless (clearly defined in scripture)

Ascension (clearly defined in scripture)

King (clearly defined in scripture)

Preached about by Apostles (clearly defined in scripture)
 
elvisman – :tsktsk: and to think that you have accused me of not understanding English at times in here!
You are either deliberately misinterpreting my posting below and presenting it, in a false manner or it is simply a mistake on your part.
I’ve highlighted and underlined the part that I think you are referring too.
Please re-read it again.
Now - how does this apply to the question you keep throwing out at me (the one above ) – when I am simply presenting a “list”, to assist in clarifying similarities? Based on that, why would you call me a liar with regards to what I posted, see post below.

Post # 510 elvisman
Unless you can show me where the Catholic Church teaches that we raise Mary to divinity and that her Assumption was meant to parallel Jesus’ Ascencion - yes, you’re liars. A liar is somebody who says things that aren’t true - not out of ignorance, but contempt or other ulterior motive.

Post elvisman is referring too #376

Hi Elvisman - I’m going to jump on the piggyback too!
Adam and Eve’s creation here as being sinless is irrelevant to this issue, as they were not birthed by other human beings, as Mary and Jesus were.

As for Enoch and Elijah – the mention of them is irrelevant to the comments made.

As for SIA not getting “this stuff” from scripture…it’s an “opinion” in relation to the topic of this thread….however it is worth noting that the similarities listed below, of the Marian Theology that the Catholic church is teaching as fact is also “not from scripture.” If clarity from scripture is now of importance to you, see below.

Mary

Born without sin (not clearly defined in scripture)

Sinless (not clearly defined in scripture)

Assumption (not clearly defined in scripture)

Queen (not clearly defined in scripture)

Preached about by Jesus and Apostles (no where in scripture)

Jesus

Born without sin (clearly defined in scripture)

Sinless (clearly defined in scripture)

Ascension (clearly defined in scripture)

King (clearly defined in scripture)

Preached about by Apostles (clearly defined in scripture)
I already pointed out to Justasking4 in a previous post that I was mistaken about you having made certain remarks that were actually made by the hit and run poster, SIA.

It was the confusing way you were posting that threw me off. No offense, but you copy remarks of previous posts in a strange way.

Anyway - I was referring to your apparent support of SIA’s remarks - which were patently false. When I see a lie - I call the person on it - as I did with SIA, but he hasn’t responded.

Also - I never called you a liar. I did say that you spoke in untruths and half truths. I also said that you were either a liar or an ignoramus and that the choice was yours. 😉
 
Let’s see. It appears that you are defending the lies you have told as “persecution for righteousness sake”. It is not clear if you believe you are righteous in pandering lies about the Catholic faith.

Let me clarify that for you…as you seem to be implying that I consider myself to be righteous, whereas I only consider myself to be “blessed” for the sake of righteousness – being what is “just or rightful.”

Then you tell another member that he should be rejoicing because you have told lies about his faith.

I see you didn’t put in “all” of the original posting – so of course the reference I made has been lost, by what you’ve posted here. I’ve added it here now.
I was referring the other member to his posting where he states “It’s a pack of lies and half-truths……etc.” and said that if he truly believes that to be true…then indeed **he should be **rejoicing, as the scripture reference points out.

What is wrong with that…if **he truly believes **that there are lies and half-truths being spread about his church, and this obviously upsets him, why should I not refer him to some scripture that might lift him up a bit?

Then you finish by claiming that you have been blessed by telling these lies.

No……I claim that I’ve been blessed due to the accusation tossed out at me by the other member,
of being a liar, when it is not so….especially as stated in verse 11.

Something seems very out of order here! :eek:
Yes…well I can see by your understanding and interpretation how it would!🙂

Who has been a liar from the beginning?
1 John V 22 - 29

[22] Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
[23] Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
[24] Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
[25] And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
[26] These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
[27] But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
[28] And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
[29] If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
 
Does not your church want all its doctrines and practices to be grounded in the Scriptures? If so, why would they want this?
The Holy Scriptures were never meant to contain all of the Teachings. All of the Teachings are grounded in Jesus, who is the author and finisher of our faith.

We do see how our doctrines and practices are reflected in scripture, but one cannot properly understand the scripture when it is separated from it’s context, which is the Catholic Church. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. When one separates it from that Teaching, all kinds of errors result. 🤷
 
I already pointed out to Justasking4 in a previous post that I was mistaken about you having made certain remarks that were actually made by the hit and run poster, SIA.

It was the confusing way you were posting that threw me off. No offense, but you copy remarks of previous posts in a strange way.

Yeah I know, I’m still getting used to it and sometimes it gets a bit muddled…but that’s probably because I’m an ignoramus. 🙂

Anyway - I was referring to your apparent support of SIA’s remarks - which were patently false. When I see a lie - I call the person on it - as I did with SIA, but he hasn’t responded.

Also - I never called you a liar. I did say that you spoke in untruths and half truths. I also said that you were either a liar or an ignoramus and that the choice was yours. 😉
:hmmm: I’m glad you defined the untruths and half truths part…I think? 🍿
 
again this idea of a “Sacred Tradition” keeps coming up but there are no specific examples of it.
This is just a falsehood, ja4. You have been given dozens of examples of Sacred Tradition,and appear to ignore them all. At least have the honesty to recognize what has been told to you, even if you don’t agree with it.

One sacred tradition that has been given you repeatedly on this thread is that 'full of grace" means “no room for sin”. You obviously don’t agree with this, and that is your perogative, but have the decency to refrain from lying about what you have been told.
Code:
Claiming it exist and demonstating what it is are 2 different things. It has already been admitted that there is no such list of them put out by the Catholic church. If that is the case its useless as a support for anything.
The fact that you find a particular Source “useless” does not invalidate it for others. Those of us that have received the Apostolic Teaching with joy find it quite useful.

One wonders, why are you here?

Is it your intention to use this venue as an opportunity to sound your opinion publicly that the Catholic faith is “useless as a support for anything”?

If so, that is not the purpose of CAF. This forum is for people who have honest and genuine questions about the Catholic faith.
There is no support for this assertion that Mary was “saved in a most excellent way from the moment of her conception” in Scripture. This is something the apostles never taught.
I am sure it seems that way to you, since you reject the support that is available as “useless” and you have rejected the Apostolic Teaching outright.
Mary was not a wineskin and is never referred to as such.
Even better, since she contained the Divine Wine of Jesus Himself!

But, you are right, He referred to her as “Woman”, because she is the new Eve, the manifestation of what Woman was created to be, immaculate, and totallly in service to God.
Is Sacred Tradition different than the written Scriptures?
This is like asking, “are the many things that Jesus said and did that are not written in the Bible different than the ones that are written?”

Tradition and Scripture are two strands of the one divine deposit of faith given once and for all to the Church. They are in perfect harmony with one another, because they come from the same Source.
What is an example or 2 of Sacred Tradition that is not mentioned in the Scriptures?
  1. That people do not have to sin. We are delivered from slavery to sin, and can live without sinning.
  2. That sacred scripture is not to be separated from the sacred tradition that produced it.
Is this listed somewhere offically as a Sacred Tradtion?
It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find a Sacred Tradition that is not written about somewhere today.

The Canon of scripture has been infallibly proclaimed by the ecumenical councils. The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed. The Apostles and the early fathers used the Septuagint. Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above. Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon.

This is the case with the Sacred Traditions that are later proclaimed at councils. They “ratify what had already become the mind of the Church”.

Such is the case with the immaculate conception of Mary.
 
I am asking these questions in utter desperation,after having read the whole thread twice over.
Leann, just what is the Church of Christ according to you (I did not ask what the Protestant position is;there cannot be one postion since there is no one Church)?

I have been told by most P friends that it is the community of believers,among other things.If u agree with this,then u wil also agree that this Community started as a tiny group on Pentecost. **Aftr the death of the Apostles, was this true Church-Community still alive? **From what u have ben saying, it appears not,for the following reason:
It was the Bishops of the five Patriarchiate churches that perpetuated the handing down of teaching offices,the manuscripts of Scripture,etc by the “laying on of hands”.These same teachers clearly talked about veneration of the Saints,the Eucharist and other Catholic beliefs,even if rudimentarily: don’t even be dishonest enuf to deny this. Adhering to your conviction that all catholic beliefs are spurious,this Church of the second century could not have been the true church.
**Assuming that the apostles’ church was a Bible-only community,exactly when did your “true Bible church” disappear? Which year, exactly? And where?**Both of us will agree that since 2nd c the Institutionalised Church(which to my asurance was Roman catholic) as we roughly know it today has never been bible-only.Until, I’m sure you will insist,the reformers came along and your ‘true church’,which i could assume had gone into a 1400 year hibernation, finally emerged.😃
Or maybe you will say the true church was revealed to *you *when an altar-call was made in some underground garage, or school hall,or your living room b4 the TV set.There are thousands of people claiming similar things.😉
During those 1400 years, the Church I call Mother has produced the great Saints about whom i won’t get started;I don’t want to romanticise the lives of the Saints or the martyrs,because I don’t even expect u to take their “catholic” testimonies as Christian. You just tell me how u can be so certain that u have been chosen as the/a recipient of the “true gospel”.
Such premium on your private understanding…disregarding the saints over the centuries,their lives and the Holy Spirit’s works thru them!:eek:
*I want to urge you…do not make the mistake of thinking that you are the first Christian,and that there were no true Christians before you.*If u realise that the “pillar and foundation of Truth” is the Church,the One Holy Catholic Apostolic of the Nicene Creed, and not a book interpreted by arbitrary individual understanding,all your certitudes,which most of us tend to idolise, will disappear.
Blessings and good wishes.
It seems that there’s really no questions here to answer……as you’ve not only asked them…but gone on to answer them “for” me as well…either by supposition or your own vivid imagination.
It looks like you’re enjoying yourself…so I’ll leave you to it then!

Well it looks like you don’t have to worry about that happening – the part about ‘my certitudes disappearing when I realize that the pillar and foundation of Truth is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic of the Nicene Creed’ – but thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. 😃 😉 :eek:
 
Originally Posted by justasking4
Does not your church want all its doctrines and practices to be grounded in the Scriptures? If so, why would they want this?

guanophore
The Holy Scriptures were never meant to contain all of the Teachings. All of the Teachings are grounded in Jesus, who is the author and finisher of our faith.

We do see how our doctrines and practices are reflected in scripture, but one cannot properly understand the scripture when it is separated from it’s context, which is the Catholic Church. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. When one separates it from that Teaching, all kinds of errors result. 🤷
Actually your claim that just because you are catholic you are somehow connected to the truth is misleading. The problem is that when we compare Catholic teachings with the inspired-inerrant Scriptures we find that many of those teachings deny the very Scriptures they claim to have written. View attachment 4259
 
guanophore;4265162]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What is an example or 2 of Sacred Tradition that is not mentioned in the Scriptures?
guanophore
  1. That people do not have to sin. We are delivered from slavery to sin, and can live without sinning.
Who in the Catholic church has ever claimed to have never sinned?
  1. That sacred scripture is not to be separated from the sacred tradition that produced it.
Heard this many times before but have yet to see any kind of list so we can truly study what these Sacred Traditions are and see how they relate to the Scriptures. i’ll have to continue to wait i guess…🤷
 
Yes, I should have done that first, read the document, before asking. Thanks, I’ve done so now, from the Vatican website and I went back and looked at the verses again that you supplied.

NONE of us are in a position to judge anyone….such as you’ve done above….however we are to contend for the faith and a part of doing that means one has to examine and come to a conclusion as to what is truth and what is speculation or theory.
“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”
Luke 10, 16


And who might “we” be outside the Church and severed from the historic Christian faith to contend with Sacred Tradition. Someone who believes that she has the unassailable authority to interpret the scriptures in light of her own personal religious experiences with God against the established doctrines of the Church is in no viable position to contend. She is just a religion unto herself apart from the true Christian faith of 2000 years. Soul-competency is at the root of the Protestant Reformation and the fragmentation of this religious movement. It has reached its climax in post-modern America with the rise of neo-gnostic persuasions such as Mormonism, Jehova’s Witness, the Southern Baptist Convention, and Non-denominational Evangelicalism.

I understand where you’re coming from. Your definition of the true faith rests on your own subjective experiences in opposition with the religious experience of the single community. You have the same mentality as any independent religious thinker and church founder since the time of Martin Luther. The Me-God-My Bible mindset begs for a division of faith among individuals. One denomination keeps adding another and another ad finitum.

It’s because of Sola Scriptura and the private interpretation of Scripture that Protestantism is a divided house that keeps breaking apart and always will be with one individual group holding to this opinion and another individual group holding to that opinion until the next individual with her own opinion in an individual group decides to break off and form her own group based on her own individual religious experience with God. Jesus knew something like this would happen in Christendom, so he founded his One Church on Peter and the Apostles. Our Lord did not publish a Bible and commission his disciples to hand a copy out to each individual at every street corner so that individual Christians can decided for themselves what God has revealed to mankind. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth - not a written book. The keys of the kingdom lie with Peter and his valid successors, the Popes, on the foundation of the Apostles and their valid successors, the College of Bishops.

The divine authority to determine what has been revealed to the Church through the course of Sacred Tradition and to teach has been entrusted to the Episcopacy of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church by Christ who received that same authority from the Father. This authority does not lie with individual professors of faith nor rest on their independent religious experiences with God through the reading of the scriptures. Once Luther rejected the divine teaching authority of the Church the logical course for him was to presumptuously assume that authority as an individual person. He used the Bible as the only formal deposit of faith to go by. So you can understand how shocked and outraged he was when the other reformers rejected many of his private doctrines and formed their own denominations. He himself became the victim of private interpretation by having to contend with conflicting doctrines formed by other private individuals like himself who appealled to the same Bible. Jesus founded his Church on Peter and the Apostles for the sake of a unity of faith.

Protestantism has moved farther and farther away from the historic Christian faith since the Reformation. A deformation is a more suitable term to describe the Protestant movement. The soul-competent religious thinker is not with Christ but against him for he scatters the sheep in his religious egotism.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a true teaching of the universal Church established by Christ and led by the Spirit of truth whom our Lord sent to his Church, not to a single individual like you and me. The Spirit touches our individual lives with respect to our personal growth in Christ. Let us leave the greater mysteries in the custody of the Magisterium of the Church. It is not for private individuals to decide what is true by interpreting the Bible for themselves. We are not a Church unto ourselves. All the major heresies of Christendom, including those of the neo-Gnostic sects and movements of the United States which orthodox Protestants object to, have gained their existence by following the principle of Sola Scriptura. The competent-souls who have founded these independent sects are no less against Christ as were the early reformers of the 16th century in Europe.

If you think that God has personally revealed something to you in the Bible that contravenes the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church, then by the definition of the term, you are a neo-Gnostic. You’re no different from Joseph Smith jr., the founder of Mormonism. When you deny or reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, you are essentially declaring your own anti-dogma grounded on your own individual speculations.

“Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
St.Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 105)
 
" guanophore:
Let’s see. It appears that you are defending the lies you have told as “persecution for righteousness sake”. It is not clear if you believe you are righteous in pandering lies about the Catholic faith.
Let me clarify that for you…as you seem to be implying that I consider myself to be righteous, whereas I only consider myself to be “blessed” for the sake of righteousness – being what is “just or rightful.”
Do I understand this to mean that you consider it to be an act of “righteousness” to tell lies about the Catholic faith? In this lying you are blessed because you have acted in “righteousness”?
"guanophore:
Then you tell another member that he should be rejoicing because you have told lies about his faith.
I see you didn’t put in “all” of the original posting – so of course the reference I made has been lost, by what you’ve posted here. I’ve added it here now.
I was referring the other member to his posting where he states “It’s a pack of lies and half-truths……etc.” and said that if he truly believes that to be true…then indeed he should be rejoicing, as the scripture reference points out.
Scripture tells us to rejoice in what is right, honorable, and laudible. The lies you have told her are not grounds for rejoicing.
What is wrong with that…if he truly believes that there are lies and half-truths being spread about his church, and this obviously upsets him, why should I not refer him to some scripture that might lift him up a bit?
It would be more proper to refrain from wounding him, so that he then does not need to be lifted from where you have trampled him.
"guanophore:
Then you finish by claiming that you have been blessed by telling these lies.
No……I claim that I’ve been blessed due to the accusation tossed out at me by the other member,
of being a liar, when it is not so….
You may certainly be happy in your calumny, but I am still waiting for you to answer his challenge. You have yet to produce any official document that states Mary, a creature, should be raised to divine status.
[29] If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
I don’t think that such a one would insult His mother!
 
guanophore;4265162]
Originally Posted by justasking4
again this idea of a “Sacred Tradition” keeps coming up but there are no specific examples of it.
guanophore
This is just a falsehood, ja4. You have been given dozens of examples of Sacred Tradition,and appear to ignore them all. At least have the honesty to recognize what has been told to you, even if you don’t agree with it.
What i have seen are a number of examples of things related directly to the Scriptures like worship on the Sunday and an appeal that they are “mentioned” in the catechism. What i’m still wondering is: are these things mentioned in the catechism are truly all the Sacred Traditions or are they something else.
One sacred tradition that has been given you repeatedly on this thread is that 'full of grace" means “no room for sin”. You obviously don’t agree with this, and that is your perogative, but have the decency to refrain from lying about what you have been told.
Where has your church stated that this is a Sacred Tradition about what “full of grace” means “no room for sin”?
 
Actually your claim that just because you are catholic you are somehow connected to the truth is misleading.
Jesus is Head of the Church. All who are in Christ are connected to the Head. Jesus is the Truth, therefore, all who are in the Church are connected with the Truth.
The problem is that when we compare Catholic teachings with the inspired-inerrant Scriptures we find that many of those teachings deny the very Scriptures they claim to have written.
That is because the “we” who are doing the comparing are uneducated, bigoted, and not in posession of the Apostolic Teaching. I know this. I used to be one of them! I was baptized Catholic as an infant, and left the Church because I did not understand the Teachings, or the Scriptures.

I am not sure it is possible to understand scripture properly without the context, which is the Catholic Church. It is that Church that teaches that “full of grace” means there is no room for sin.
Who in the Catholic church has ever claimed to have never sinned?
So far as I know, no one who lives a life of sanctity has enough pride to make such a claim. 🤷

Others make it of them, just as the fathers did of Mary. She was so humble, I don’t think she would ever presume to say such a thing.
Heard this many times before but have yet to see any kind of list so we can truly study what these Sacred Traditions are and see how they relate to the Scriptures. i’ll have to continue to wait i guess…🤷
I am sorry, ja4. You cannot have access to the Sacred Traditions. It might be a long wait. 😦
What i have seen are a number of examples of things related directly to the Scriptures like worship on the Sunday and an appeal that they are “mentioned” in the catechism. What i’m still wondering is: are these things mentioned in the catechism are truly all the Sacred Traditions or are they something else.
Do you think that worship on Sunday is a non-sacred tradition?

Do you think it is, as you believe about other Sacred Traditions, “speculations of men”?

Do you think it is from the devil?

Do you think the catechism does not include Sacred Tradition?
Where has your church stated that this is a Sacred Tradition about what “full of grace” means “no room for sin”?
In Ineffabilis Deus . 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top