Sinless Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Christopher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
guanophore;4267910]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
These things that Ligori writes in the Glories of Mary are considered true about her. Here is a quote from this book:
CHAPTER 6
TURN, THEN, MOST GRACIOUS ADVOCATE
Mary Is an Advocate with Power
to Save All
SO great is the authority that mothers possess over their sons, that even if they are monarchs, and have absolute dominion over every person in their kingdom, yet never can mothers become the subjects of their sons. It is true that Jesus now in Heaven sits at the right of the Father, enjoying that distinction even as Man because of the hypostatic union with the Person of the Divine Word.
He has supreme dominion over all and also over Mary; nevertheless, it can always be said that for a time at least, when He was living in this world, He was pleased to humble himself and be subject to Mary. Says St. Ambrose, Jesus Christ having deigned to make Mary His Mother, inasmuch as He was her Son, He was truly obliged to obey her. And for this reason, says Richard of St. Laurence, "Of other Saints we say that they are with God; but of Mary alone can it be said that she was so far favored as to be not only herself submissive to the will of God, but even that God was subject to her will.
Therefore we say that, even though Mary can no longer command her Son, since they are not on earth any more, still her prayers are always the prayers of a Mother and are therefore most powerful in obtaining whatever she asks.
At the command of Mary all obey, even God. 38
She is omnipotent, for the queen, according to all laws, enjoys the same privileges as the king; and since the son’s power also belongs to the mother, this Mother is made omnipotent by an omnipotent Son. 39
Are these things true of Mary or not?
They certainly seem to be that way from Ligouri’s perspective. He is entitled to his own opinion as much as you are, don’t you think?
This more than opinion but it is one of the foundation stones for the Marian doctrines. Secondly, how do you go about recoginzing false teachers in your midst? When you do find them what steps do you take?
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Does she have power to save all?
guanophore
She has the power, just as each of us do, to accomplish all that God desires for her life.
He is claiming that she “saves all”. Now i don’t have such power nor do i know anyone who does but Christ. This has to be one of the greatest claims made about her.
Does God every use you to save anyone?
Sometimes i think i’m used as a instrument in various capacities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Does she command God Himself to obey her?
guanophore
I suppose she probably did when he was a child. It would not surpise me if she hollered “Jesus, don’t run in front of that cart!” or something similar. Brush your teeth, take your bath, go to bed, etc.
I don’t take this as a refernce to Jesus when He was a child but to the Father Himself.
Personally, I think “command” is not the proper word.
Note also he claims she is omnipotent. Only God is omnipotent.
What of this claim that she is omnipotent?
 
guanophore;4267929]
What does that mean “endorses”?
The church allows the publication and reading of this book as edifying for all Catholics.
And the reason it is off topic is because it is not related to Mary’s sinlessness. You are picking at the words “omnipotent” and “command God” and neither of these has anything to do with the thread topic.
I think it does. It would follow that one who is sinless may very well be omnipotent.
It ispropoganda is because you are out fishing for literature you can use to fan the flames of anti-Catholicism. You have used this post to criticize Catholics because we have not confronted the “false teachers” in the Church, which also has nothing to do with the thread!
It is impossible to discuss Marian doctrines without referencing some of the works on her. Saint Ligori and a couple of others are some of the most important works on Marilogy and offer some of the clearest examples of devotion to her. What they have written is relevant to our discussions.

What shocks me is how many intelligent catholics support this kind of thing.
Your bigotry is leaking.
Your vocabulary against those who you disagree with is quite enlightening. I take this kind of thing as a person of a weak faith. i’m praying for you though…:slapfight:
 
Hi guanophore!

posted by guanaphore
I have looked back several pages. Here is one very blatant untruth:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leann
(other than the HS- who as we all know – is the property of the Catholic church and cannot work outside of its claimed authority)

guanophore:
I suppose it is possible that this is simply a sarcastic statement. As you may recall, sarcasm comes from the two words “flesh cutting”. Perhaps you deem that to be an expression of rightousness also?

reply Leeann:

Sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound. Sarcasm can also be used in a **humorous or jesting way depending on the intent of the ****person speaking. ** (from Wikipedia, the free encylopedia)
Have you made up your mind yet? Is the posting you quoted from me a “very blatant untruth” as you initially state abaove – or is it “sarcasm” as you then “suppose” it might be?I’ve never claimed to be righteous and while sarcasm may not be becoming to you – neither is bearing false witness – which you have been doing for quite awhile now as is evident in your postings either to me – or regarding me, a blatant example is listed below.
**Quote # 566
Guanophore:
What has happened is that the shameless lies you have told are still here. **

guanophore:
I suppose it is also possible that you have made this statement in ignorance. Many of your posts reveal a vast ignorance and hostility toward the Catholic faith, therefore, it my not be a deliberate attempt to deceive others. I am open to the possiblity that you have been deceived by others, and are a witless victim in spreading the deceit. However, such an act hardly qualfies as a righteous deed.

Reply Leeann:
How righteous of you to come to this conclusion – especially when one takes into consideration your reasoning abilities – such as they are.

Originally Posted by Leeann
Now remember from before guanophore…slow down and thoroughly read the quotes and who they’re from and what context they’ve been posted in…

guanophore:
I thank you for this rather condescending direction. I wonder if you will consider learning to use the quote feature? However short your stay at CAF may be, it would be easier to read if you used the quotes.
Reply Leeann:
Yeah…I know! I’m doing a bit better at it than before, but still have to work out the “quotes” within “quotes” thing? Do you think when I do that it will help with your comprehension?

Originally Posted by Leeann
– if the poster truly believes what he/she? posted to be true…then indeed he should be rejoicing…in other words is the poster feels that something is being said about his beliefs/faith/church that is not true…if he/she really believes that, then he should draw strength from the verses I gave.

guanophore:
No. The only strength that can be draw from lies is strength to do evil. I would not wish such a thing on anyone.

Reply Leeann:
Are you saying that people cannot draw strength from the scriptures – as that is what was posted.
It is you that has changed the context in your reply.

guanophore:
You are saying that you have provided cause for rejoicing by maligning the Catholic faith. You are justifying you calamity by purporting that Catholics, when lies are being told about the faith, are being “persecuted for righteousness sake”.
By corollary, you ,then, are providing persecution against the Catholic Church.

Reply Leeann:
That is your perception.
I have nothing to justify…as no lies were told.

Originally Posted by Leeann
You are right! We should all refrain from wounding others by our assumptions and preconceived ideas and sharp words and accusations……the truth shouldn’t be dispensed that way….but it should be dispensed nevertheless.

guanophore:
Does this mean you will retract the untruthful and wounding, sarcastic statement you made above, about the working of the HS?

Reply Leeann:
Well actually, when read in context, it is made about the Catholic church and it’s not untruthful.
And are you going to now retract the untruthful and wounding assumptions and false accusations that you have made?

Originally Posted by Leeann
I’ve never insulted Mary – all my comments and posts have been directed towards the Catholic church (as we know it today) and the their teachings.

guanophore:
You have made it clear that what you know about the Catholic Church today is misguided and erroneous.
I disagree.
 
cont’d. for guanophore:

Even so, attacking the Church is attacking Christ, since he fully identifies Himself with the Church. Do you not remember what He said to Saul when Saul was ravaging the Church?

Of course I do….however it’s not the Catholic church of today that He was referring too.

Originally Posted by Leeann
Do Catholics not have a sense of humour?

guanophore:
Sure! I don’t find the pandering of untruths about the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church with sarcasm to be very amusing, however.

Thank you for offering your opinion…even though it wasn’t required or asked for, as that comment was not addressed to you.:rolleyes:
 
guanophore;4267910]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Since the Catholic church fully endorses this work and this work makes her out to be some kind of goddess i.e. omnipotent.

guanophore;
No, ja4. This material is not “fully endorsed” by the Church. You are thinking of the Catechism, perhaps?
i think not. Here is the endorsement:

" THE GLORIES OF MARY

by
St. Alphonsus de Liguori
Doctor of the Church

Edited by
Rev. Eugene Grimm,
Priest of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer

Nihil obstat: Rev. Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D.
Censor Librorum

Imprimatur: + His Eminence
Patritius Cardinalis Hayes
Archiepiscopus Neo-Eboracensis
Neo-Eboraci
Die 16 Aprilis, 1931

Approbation

By virtue of the authority granted me by the Most Rev. Patrick Murray, Superior General of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, I hereby sanction the publication of the work entitled “THE GLORIES OF MARY”, which combines Volumes VII and VIII of the complete edition of the works of St. Alphonsus de Liguori.

Rev. Andrew B. Kuhn, C.SS.R.,
Provincial
Brooklyn, N.Y., January 1, 1931

Copyright by Very Rev. Andrew B. Kuhn, C.SS.R., 1931

We, at Mary’s Touch By Mail, thank the Redemptorist Fathers of New York for giving us permission to publish on our website the work of Saint Alphonsus entitled “The Glories of Mary” as per the letter written by Rev. Carl Hoegerl, C.SS.R., Archivist, dated November 17, 2004.

View attachment 4273
 
OK wildgreywolf, I have to say first I am really a sheep in wolves clothing, but if I were Leeann, **and I won’t **speak for her, I guess I will have no answer, perhaps she will shunt you off onto a different thread.
Just for the record - I had no part in the original “shunting you off to another thread” did I…just so that’s clear.
But here’s your bag…what’s your hurry.😉

And I appreciate that at least there is someone here that isn’t attempting to “speak for me”.

Now I want to get back to some of these posts and “catch up” a bit…real life does intrude sometimes and has taken up a good portion of my day!
 
Good Fella

The Church Jesus speaks of is the same Holy Catholic Apostolic Church built on Peter alone and founded on the Apostles and through them their valid successors with Christ as the head. Jesus does not build his Church on individual Leeann types. Your mentality resembles that of the two greatest heretics in Church history: Arius and Luther, who as lone individuals arrogantly defied the divine teaching authority of the Catholic Church. 🤓

Oh NO…you mean someone has done this BEFORE ME??? :eek: :
Jesus did not establish his Church merely on the merits of Peter’s statement. The apostle’s name was changed from Simon to Peter (Rock) as Abram’s name was changed to Abraham and Saul’s name was changed to Paul, indicating his unique position of primacy among the other apostles. Peter was the one who was given the keys. The Church was established and built on Peter alone with the other apostles serving as the foundation. Peter’s profession of faith is the first and most fundamental infallible declaration made by any of the popes who succeed him. It was by the grace of God that Peter acquired this knowledge, not by flesh and blood or by any merit on his part. The merit does rest with his graced privilege to perceive the divine truth. But this single privilege is a sign that Peter was chosen to act as Christ’s vicar on earth, modelling the Davidic kingdom in which the king’s prime minister had the power to “bind and loose.” “The New Testament lies hidden in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament,” says Augustine. Jesus and the apostles were devout Jews who appealled to Judaic tradition. Pope Pius lX declared the historic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception an infallible dogma ‘ex cathedra’: “from the chair of Peter.”
We’ve been through this before, Jesus founded his church on the merit of Peter’s statement – and to claim that the Catholic church of today is the same, by “apostolic succession”, as those very early churches – is preposterous.*
Your interpretation of the text holds no water. I suggest you do some objective research on the subject before engaging in wishful thinking or repeating the same rationalizations one finds on Protestant websites.
And I suggest you read the verse in context and with the others that go along with it, describing how Jesus sent out 70+ disciples to establish churches also…the real early churches.

Luke 10:
[1] After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
[2] Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.
[3] Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
[4] Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
[5] And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.
[6] And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.
[7] And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
[8] And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
[9] And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
[10] But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
[11] Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
[12] But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
[13] Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
[14] But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you.
[15] And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.
[16] He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
[17] And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
[18] And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
[19] Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
[20] Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.
 
…and yet you accept that a sinless Mary was born from sinful parents, no?
Doesn’t a farmer prepare his field for planting?
Does he not fertilize the ground, till the soil and remove stones?

Mary needed a Savior just like all of us; the exception here is that God saved Mary at the moment of her conception in anticipation of her literally, personally, intimately receiving the Word of God.

As Gabriel put it:

Luke 1:31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.

Luke 1:35 And the angel said to her in reply, The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
Unless there was an unbroken chain of sinless people from the time of Adam, if you accept Jesus as outside original sin then there must have been someone born pure from someone sinful.
God created Adam and Eve in a sinless state. Sinless is how God intended us to be; to be sinless is to be in our natural state. Our sinful, fallen state is an unnatural state and the one where we find ourselves in today.

For God’s purpose of salvation then Mary was saved from the effects of original sin from the moment of her conception. In so doing God ensured that the human nature Jesus would receive from His mother would be the same human nature God intended for humanity from the beginning.
 
Good Fella:
The Catholic Church has always been the early Church of apostolic and post-apostolic time:
“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”
John 6, 54-56

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11, 23-27

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1 (c.A.D.110)

And coming to her he said, “Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you. Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God.”
Luke 1, 28, 30

*
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God; immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.”*
Origen, Homily, 1 (A.D. 244)

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


The doctrines of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist and the sinlessness of Mary were consistently taught by the Church Fathers for eight centuries. Hyppolytus (ante 235) portrays Mary as a type of ark of the Old Covenant, but Proclus of Constantinople (ante 446) appears to be the first among them to explicitly perceive Mary as having been immaculately conceived:

“As he formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her without any stain.”

Sorry to disappoint you, but the Catholic Church is the early Church. 😉

I’m not disappointed.
I’m just amazed how you can draw a conclusion from the Luke scripture (the Hail Mary one above…) and the quotes from Origen and Ambrose about Mary being immaculate and sin free.

In an earlier post of yours, (below) you posted a quote from Hyppolytus that portrayed Jesus as the ark and Mary as the tabernacle (as is evident from the conclusion you draw later) – now above Hyppolytus portrays Mary as a type of ark – as I asked then and received no reply – is this person a reliable source – or is it just poetic license? Or is now Mary considered to be both?

Originally posted by Good Fella #473 (to justasking)

The expression ‘kecharitomene’ signifies that Mary was constantly in a state of grace. She never once fell from God’s grace as Eve did and entered the state of sin. Mary was able to remain faithful to God because she was conceived without a sinful nature and empowered by God’s grace to choose not to sin. She was endowed with God’s sanctifying grace as soon as she was fashioned to be the Ark of the Word made flesh. You will never see the truth as long as you keep taking the written word literally by focussing on what lies explicitly on the surface of a page. Your faulty premise on which you approach the scriptures naturally leads you to arrive at wrong conclusions and espouse heretical beliefs.

"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."
Hyppolytus, ‘Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me’ (ante A.D. 235)


I’m impressed by this fragment since it implies belief in Mary’s Assumption had already existed in the Church by this time. In his Apostolic Constitution Pope Pius lX cites Mary’s exemption from the universal law of sin and the corruption of death as a reason for her Assumption into heaven.
 
Good Fella
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.
So the spirit that touches your individual life is not one that enables you to “know” what is true…so how is that affecting your “personal growth in Christ” then….if the Spirit of truth is not in you? :confused:
 
So the spirit that touches your individual life is not one that enables you to “know” what is true…so how is that affecting your “personal growth in Christ” then….if the Spirit of truth is not in you? :confused:
Leeann, I have a very serious question for you:

How do you know that the “spirit that touches your individual life” is the one that enables you to know what is right?
 
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

That’s what I mean by propaganda. You object to something because the Church endorses it. Besides, it’s off-topic.
A lot of the stuff is off topic!
But why is it only called “off topic” when it’s coming from someone who doesn’t agree with you? (not just you…I mean others in here too)…or something you don’t want to answer at this time? :yup:

If justasking or I don’t reply to what we consider to be “off topic posts” - or because we’re busy catching up on reading other posts or replying to other posts…it’s implied that we’re trying to evade the issue. :sad_yes:
 
Somebody created a special thread just for your idea about there having been many churches established as opposed to just one Church. If you have any fresh thoughts on that matter you can post them there. Here
Thanks Thing!
 
This more than opinion but it is one of the foundation stones for the Marian doctrines.
Oh, heavens no ja4! The foundation stones for the Marian doctrines predated Ligouri by a thousand years! The foundations are the doctrinal developments about the nature of Christ, in response to Gnosticism and Arianism. These were in place for centuries before He was born.
Secondly, how do you go about recoginzing false teachers in your midst? When you do find them what steps do you take?
Well, in this case, I try to log on CAF every day, and check my “profile” for the threads on which you have been posting. Just to be sure I don’t miss anything, I do a search on your username. I go through each of your posts one by one, and point out the falsehoods you have posted on that day. 😃
Code:
He is claiming that she "saves all". Now i don't have such power nor do i know anyone who does but Christ. This has to be one of the greatest claims made about her.
This is not inconsistent with Scripture. Why would it bother you if another Christian can be involved in saving a soul?

1 Cor 9:22-23
" To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings."

Do you imagine that Paul believes he can “save some” by himself? No, it is Christ working though him, to the glory of God. Do you think that Jesus would not be willing to work through his own mother in the same way, or do you think she was less devoted to him than the apostle Paul?
Code:
Sometimes i think i'm used as a instrument in various capacities.
I think that about you every time I read one of your posts. :eek:
Code:
I don't take this as a refernce to Jesus when He was a child but to the Father Himself.
I am not in a position to comment, never having read the material.
Code:
What of this claim that she is omnipotent?
What of it? If Ligouri wants to let her be all powerful in his life, I guess that is his perogative. I have known many men who afford this privilege to their wives. It is rather endearing, actuallly. You gotta admire a man who can give up his ego to a woman!
 
The church allows the publication and reading of this book as edifying for all Catholics.
Well, since your are not Catholic, how does that apply to you?

There are many practices and devotions that have been found edifying to the faithful. There is a monastery near here that has a Poustinia. It is not required, and it is not part of the doctrine of the church. If, in your conscience, you determine you are not called to it, you can go your way in peace, can you not?
Code:
I think it does. It would follow that one who is sinless may very well be omnipotent.
Nonsense. God created us with specific limits on our powers, abilities, and freedoms. The fact that He calls us to be sinless is another matter entirely. We are able to be sinless by His grace, not by any power of our own. As I have said to you before, you do not understand sinlessness because you do not understand grace. 🤷
Code:
It is impossible to discuss Marian doctrines without referencing some of the works on her.
Of course it is. These poems and devotions you have brought forth are not the source of the Marian doctrines. If you want to bring in some relevant works, then let us look at the works of the fathers in response to the heresies from whence the doctrines sprang. These things, millennia after the fact, are not germaine to the doctrines.
Saint Ligori and a couple of others are some of the most important works on Marilogy and offer some of the clearest examples of devotion to her. What they have written is relevant to our discussions.
No, they are not, and devotion to Mary is also not necesssarily related to Marian doctrines. These doctrines were formed out of the Apostolic teachings on the nature and person of Jesus, and not out of devotions centuries after the fact.
What shocks me is how many intelligent catholics support this kind of thing.
Actually, you are the only person around here I have seen bringing in this unrelated material. It can definitely be said that you are not catholic, and it has been observed by most of your posts that the other does not apply either. 😦
Code:
Your vocabulary against those who you disagree with is quite enlightening. I take this kind of thing as a person of a weak faith. i'm praying for you though...:slapfight:
The use of vocabulary is a sign of a person weak in faith?

Not everyone I disagree with is a bigot, and I have encountered bigotry from persons of all faith communities here on CAF.
 
A lot of the stuff is off topic!
But why is it only called “off topic” when it’s coming from someone who doesn’t agree with you? (not just you…I mean others in here too)…or something you don’t want to answer at this time? :yup:

If you observe the postings by the cadre that uses the ja4 username, you will find that many of the threads get closed for getting off topic. Also, it has been a favorite method to “spam” a thread with all kinds of anti-Catholic sentiments that are not related to the topic.
Leeann;4268962:
If justasking or I don’t reply to what we
consider to be “off topic posts” - or because we’re busy catching up on reading other posts or replying to other posts…it’s implied that we’re trying to evade the issue. :sad_yes:
I don’t know you that well, and I initially passed over your posts because I saw that Cinette was answering them well. I also notice that people who come here with your level of hostility and false information toward the Catholic Church usuallly have a very short stay. Therefore, I don’ t know that you have been ignoring posts. It has become clear on this thread that you are unable to back up you libelous accusation with facts.

HOwever, two years of sparring with the ja4 cadre has made it very clear that there is a pattern of avoiding posts to which there is no good answer.
 
If you observe the postings by the cadre that uses the ja4 username, you will find that many of the threads get closed for getting off topic. Also, it has been a favorite method to “spam” a thread with all kinds of anti-Catholic sentiments that are not related to the topic.

I don’t know you that well, and I initially passed over your posts because I saw that Cinette was answering them well. I also notice that people who come here with your level of hostility and false information toward the Catholic Church usuallly have a very short stay. Therefore, I don’ t know that you have been ignoring posts. It has become clear on this thread that you are unable to back up you libelous accusation with facts.
HOwever, two years of sparring with the ja4 cadre has made it very clear that there is a pattern of avoiding posts to which there is no good answer.
I’m going to word this as nicely as I possibly can…but how am I to take your word for the accusation you’ve posted with regards to justasking when you have made false accusations about me with regards to lieing on here?

Perhaps any “level of hostility” that you refer too, may be the consequence of a mirroring affect of your own state of mind and is clearly displayed in the manner of how you respond to posters.

It is amazing how we can never truly see ourselves as others see us…which is evident in the underlined portion of your response above.

However, thank you for explaining.
 
I respect all your opinions and i do agree that Mary was indeed a unique person no doubt.

Apologia100, you gave the example of the jungle, where did you get that from?! Is there any proof in the Holy Bible that supports your idea and proofs it or it is just from the imagination of human beings?!

Vincent (God is so powerful as to preserve Mary from the stain of Original Sin): who told you that? Show me a proof from the Holy Bible. Because if it doesn’t show in the Holy Bible than it is man made …

Vincent ( From the Catholic perspective, Mary was “born from above” at the moment of her conception): again a proof. Where do you bring those ideas from? Who is the source of these ideas? Is it man by any chance?

Vincent (If Mary is unclean (as homer believes) then this argument backfires against him. It would mean that “Not one” – *not even God *-- can bring a clean thing (Jesus) out of an unclean (Mary). But this is absurd.): I did mention that only Jesus was born without a sin through the HOLY SPIRIT.

Vincent (Mary has more reason than anybody on this earth for calling God her savior. While others were saved after falling into sin, God saved her before falling into sin in the first place. That’s salvation par excellence!): there is absolutely nothing mentioned in the Bible about this! Please tell me what is or who is the source of these ideas?
Who needs a Savior? A sinner! It’s so simple. There no mention in the Holy Bible about the fact that Mary was saved before falling into sin.

Brendan: Same story. How can you support this? Did God say anything about it? If he did, please do show me where it appears in the Holy Bible.

As a conclusion: everything i mentioned in the previous post has as a source the Holy Bible the word of God. I cannot accept the examples of the jungle … because they do not have as a reference the Holy Bible and they were invented by human beings.
Please do understand that i beleive that Mary was a great person but why this stuggle to make her sinless while this contradicts the word of God.
Who cares about your fallible interpretation?
You merely quote scriptures at its face value,
w/o furnishing further proof. You said if it is
not in the bible it is not true. Well show us the
book,chapter and verse which claim this.

All have sinned- Paul is talking in general. Babies
do not sin so is severely retarded people. Their
intellect and will cannot recognize the consequence of their actions. Again Rom 3:23
on face value does not make exception,but surely
you accept this. unless you believe in literal
interpretation all the time. then you will be in
big trouble with other passages of the bible.

No our arguments are not from the jungle. They
are from common sense and logic.and we are
trying to get you out of your habitat-The jungle of
wooden interpretation.
 
Leeann;4269277]
Originally Posted by guanophore View Post
If you observe the postings by the cadre that uses the ja4 username, you will find that many of the threads get closed for getting off topic. Also, it has been a favorite method to “spam” a thread with all kinds of anti-Catholic sentiments that are not related to the topic.
I don’t know you that well, and I initially passed over your posts because I saw that Cinette was answering them well. I also notice that people who come here with your level of hostility and false information toward the Catholic Church usuallly have a very short stay. Therefore, I don’ t know that you have been ignoring posts. It has become clear on this thread that you are unable to back up you libelous accusation with facts.
HOwever, two years of sparring with the ja4 cadre has made it very clear that there is a pattern of avoiding posts to which there is no good answer.
There is no way i-we 🤷 could respond to every post. Think of how many catholics there are here— last i saw there were 100,000 potential catholics and maybe 5 Protestants.
]I’m going to word this as nicely as I possibly can…but how am I to take your word for the accusation you’ve posted with regards to justasking when you have made false accusations about me with regards to lieing on here?
Perhaps any “level of hostility” that you refer too, may be the consequence of a mirroring affect of your own state of mind and is clearly displayed in the manner of how you respond to posters.
It is amazing how we can never truly see ourselves as others see us…which is evident in the underlined portion of your response above.
However, thank you for explaining.

i think you are doing great. There are some here that can get pretty nasty and will do almost anything to not make you feel not welcomed. Keep up the good work…👍
 
christmary4ever;4269455]
Who cares about your fallible interpretation?
All men are fallible including the pope. Keep in mind that it has been said that the Catholic church has infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures. If this is true, then everyone who interprets the Scriptures has a fallible interpretation.
You merely quote scriptures at its face value,
w/o furnishing further proof. You said if it is
not in the bible it is not true. Well show us the
book,chapter and verse which claim this.
All have sinned- Paul is talking in general. Babies
do not sin so is severely retarded people. Their
intellect and will cannot recognize the consequence of their actions. Again Rom 3:23
on face value does not make exception,but surely
you accept this. unless you believe in literal
interpretation all the time. then you will be in
big trouble with other passages of the bible
.
Does not the Catholic church baptize infants because of original sin? Where do babies get this original sin if they never sinned?
No our arguments are not from the jungle. They
are from common sense and logic.and we are
trying to get you out of your habitat-The jungle of
wooden interpretation.
Good interpretation principles will always be interpreted in context. This principle is one of the most important in coming to a correct understanding of Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top