Struggling with converting to Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter KnowledgeSeeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wait, exactly where do we find a 'sinful Mary?"

The Greek greeting of the Angel Gabriel itself implies a sinless Mary.

There is no mention of ‘personal sin’.

There is also the fact that the NT does not exist in a vacuum.

It would have been so obvious to the apostles that the Scripture of the OT (that same Scripture which St. Paul encouraged holding fast to) with its references to the Ark and its prefigurations of Jesus, along with the Virgin birth (you believe in that, right? If that OT prophecy was fulfilled, why not 'the rest of the story?")

Why are there writings which speak of the door that no one will open and shut?
The Ark?
The holiness whereby even touching it without permission led to death?
The New Eve (as a matter of course with the new Adam, a teaching proclaimed by the apostles and evangelists)
The words of Jesus to Mary standing at the foot of the cross with St. John?

There are plenty of teachings (as well as the words of Scripture itself that "not all that Jesus spoke of or taught is contained within this book), still less that the book is the pillar and foundation of Truth .

You are sidestepping as well the ‘rest of the story’. You CLAIM that the apostles did not teach Mary’s sinlessness. I claim that, in the Scripture and in oral tradition, continuing through some 1500 years until some men decided to ‘say differently’, it was taught and preached.

Not because of who Mary is, but because of who Jesus is.

Again, you claim this was ‘added in’. Please show, as I asked, the proof that this was never taught (beyond your say-so), and then was suddenly ‘added’, and by whom.

You cannot do so, for your claim is baseless and nonexistent.
 
I’m not sure what you are talking about here with the Ark. But I gave you the absence of Apostolic approval to a teaching that came much later in history. If this is baseless to you,… okay…
 
No, you didn’t. You gave your CLAIM (unsupported except that you SAY the apostles never taught Mary’s sinlessness; first, the gospel of Luke does so in the greeting of the angel Gabriel), second, oral tradition (likewise of the apostles) supports it, third, the consistent teaching of the Catholic AND Orthodox Churches through about AD 1500 supports it as does the continued teaching today.

YOU never limited the supposed ‘non teaching’ to ‘the apostles’ but again, even so, it is still there.
YOU never addressed your claim that it was not taught until ‘much later’.
YOU never supplied the documentation that it was ‘never taught’ and the document ‘put in much later’ which suddenly DOES teach it.

So you’re blowing air here. Where is your ‘much later in history’? Where is your proof it never was taught before that --SURELY you possess the exact document which ‘suddenly’ inserts this 'new teaching out of the blue to the entire Christian world
 
stpurl said:
first, the gospel of Luke does so in the greeting of the angel Gabriel), second, oral tradition (likewise of the apostles) supports it, third, the consistent teaching of the Catholic AND Orthodox Churches through about AD 1500 supports it as does the continued teaching today.
Click to expand...
Okay… Please explain your position on Mary’s greeting of the angel. I will address it from there.

Oral tradition is an un-provable concept. You use an unrecorded source to say this is how scripture came into being and recorded. That is nonsense. God’s word had to get TO THEM, before it could get FROM THEM to others.

Scripture’s source has never been from oral tradition. Scripture’s source (and claim) is from God’s mouth to the Apostle’s hearts, recorded onto parchment we call letters, gospels, ect. The living word became the written word as each Apostle died off.

Secondly, lets not forget the prophetic voice of the O.T. with the hundreds of confirmations to N.T. scripture These sources are the reliable eye-witnesses to the truth.

Tradition, if any, is subordinate to inspired scripture, not its source. I am not anti-tradition. I am anti-tradition that contradicts settled doctrine which came from God-breathed scripture.

To your third point, 1500 years of Catholic teaching is fine, as long as each piece of doctrine has an eye-witness to settle it. Those eye-witnesses are the foundation of the Church. If there is teaching without the validation from the Apostolic foundation, that teaching has no biblical merit. The progressive “revelation” that goes on today (papacy) is nothing more than false prophecy speaking in the wind to declare what God’s so called on-going message is today. It is laughable if it weren’t so sad.
 
Last edited:
tryphon said:
Please read “Rome, sweet home” by Scott and Kimberly Hahn. Kimberly, in particular found it very hard to understand the Marian devotion of the Catholic Church. This book WILL make a difference in your search for the true way towards the real Church. https://www.amazon.com/Rome-Sweet-Home-Journey-Catholicism/dp/0898704782
Click to expand...
I actually took notes when I read that book. It’s chock full of information to go look up and read more about.

And another book I would recommend is “Something Other Than God” by Jennifer Fulwiler. Also a book I actually took notes on. Her husband looked up the origins of the Mass and took a whole lot of information and notes into their first Mass with him - and was pointing out things from ancient history that are still carried out the exact same way today. It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
 
lilypadrees said:
You say that Mary knew she was a sinner who sinned. Can you please point to Scriptures where she admits to being a sinner?
Click to expand...
When I say Mary is a sinner, I am not trying to pick her out as a special case. She was beloved of God as all of God’s children are. Yet she was born into the family of Adam and therefore inherited a nature to sin just like the rest of us. She needed new birth.

The fact that she cried out to "God her savior’ in Luke 1:47, strongly implies that she knew she needed to be saved. saved from what? As tempted as I am to leave it there, I know that just one verse of scripture is not enough to build and validate doctrine as some do on this sight. 1st. John 1:10 tells us that “If we say that we have no sin, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.”

Paul said, “all have sinned…” Ro 3 Bottom line is that she is included in the family of sinners, until, or unless, there is biblical eyewitnesses to make a special case for her.

All I get is church fathers who lived centuries after the fact and were not eye-witnesses. It is not unreasonable to ask for apostolic teaching on this narrow subject of Mary.
 
Last edited:
Of course Mary was saved. She was saved before her birth, at her conception.
You still have not given us any of the things you claim as fact; where again is the ‘imposition of a teaching’, what is the document, who made it, where is the proof that it had not been practiced before, etc.?
 
You want me to give you apostolic teaching to what wasn’t believed or practiced. This is laughable. I gave you three scriptures telling you what WAS believed and practiced. Fact #1 Mary cried out to her Savior. Therefore she needed to be saved from something.

Your response was that she was saved from sin at her conception. Wonderful. How did the Apostolic Church validate, confirm and teach this belief?.. Please site a chapter and verse from the divine record.

Since you won’t be able to site anything, you argue from the mysteries of oral tradition. I argue from the testimony of N.T. eyewitnesses. They claim that all men are sinners. What does oral tradition say? most men are sinners, some men are sinners. All but Mary are sinners…

This Romans 3:23 passage is a real and historical FACT that you say I haven’t given. Who made this document? The Apostle Paul, one of God’s foundational eyewitnesses.

When we find out that Mary was a women “born under the law” from Galatians 4:4. Again, another FACT to deal with, we must measure this truth against what oral tradition says about her. If she was born under the Law, how can she be conceived sinless?..

She was born into the Jewish race and subject to the law of Moses, hence, the sin offering in Jerusalem.

Sinless people are not subject to any Law, only sinners. Mary, was under this Law based on Paul’s testimony simply because she was a sinner like all humanity is.

You say I have not given you the imposition of a teaching. What is wrong with the Apostle Paul’s teaching on sin and sinners?
 
You are still not giving me the information you claim. You’re dredging up documents and insisting that because Romans 3:23 claims in "plain English’ all men are sinners, St. Paul taught that ‘all men are sinners’.

Well then, was Jesus a sinner? Jesus is a man like us in all things but sin, Paul states ELSEWHERE. Paul does not state in Romans 3:23 "All men but Jesus are sinners’ though.
In fact, he doesn’t state that ANY women are sinners, just men. Right?

You see, you are already reading into the text things you claim ‘are there’ but which were not, in fact, seen as necessarily St. Paul stating, as a fact, “From start to finish, all people are personal sinners” (which is in fact what YOU claim from the text).

And you still have not shown me the official Church teaching, known to be preached to all (only that you CLAIM St. Paul MEANT, 'all people including Mary" but you cannot prove that and in fact, the Church not only did not ‘use the book’ in the first 3 centuries, but relied on many oral teachings and documents ‘with’ the ones we now recognize --as a gift from the Catholic Church, you can thank us-.

And you still have not given me anything other than a vague, unproven assertion that at some point ‘way later’ than the apostles, the ‘sinless Mary teaching’ was put in place.

But you refuse to tell us exactly when and by whom, and you certainly cannot show that the early Church did NOT believe in the sinless Mary, especially with Luke’s Scripture and the greeting of the angel Gabriel.

A passage and textural understanding that you seem very strangely unfamiliar with, for someone who claims to know the ‘real deal’ about Mary and her purported sin.

Funny how you insist that her ‘sin offering’ meant she ‘knew she was a sinner’, yet you ignore Jesus’ words to John the Baptist. Was Jesus a sinner?
 
How do you know? You were not there. That is why you cannot give who said what and why. It is all just hearsay for you. The Catholics were there from day one of Christianity who give you the Bible!.
 
Well, I gave you the Apostle John in 1st. John 1, and I gave you the Apostle Paul in his instructions to the Church at Rome. If I add another Apostle will that tip the scale for you in terms of documented official Church teaching? …

The argument about Jesus not being a sinner is countered by further revelations from these same Apostles. So to use absurd reasoning not only sounds childish but doesn’t fly with me my friend.

The first of what I would call, a legend about Mary is found in the so-called Proto-Evangelium of James, near the end of the second century and presents a fantastic story about her birth.

It also states that she remained a virgin throughout her entire life. Justin Martyr, who died in 165 compares Mary and Eve, the two prominent women in the Bible. Irenaeus, who died in 202, says that the disobedience of the “virgin Eve” was atoned for by the obedience of the "virgin Mary.

Tertullian, on the other hand, who was one of the greatest authorities in the ancient Church and who died in 222, raised his voice against this teaching concerning Mary’s birth. He must have compared it with the divine record of scripture. He also held that after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph lived in a normal marriage relationship.

The first known picture of Mary is found in the Priscilla catacomb in Rome and dates from the second century. Thus the Christian Church functioned for at least 150 years without idolizing the name of Mary. It wasn’t until the 3 century and beyond that her profile was exalted to a place known today as the queen of heaven.

These facts only show that the eyewitnesses to the life of Mary, along with the first century’s doctrine on sin, only clash when presented along side oral tradition.
 
Last edited:
I’m not good at copying and pasting on a tablet. So please bear with me.

Mary didn’t cry out to God her Savior. She was filled with the Holy Spirit, giving thanks and praise for what He had already done. He saved her from original sin prior to her conception. (And no, her parents didn’t have to be sinless in order for her to be.)

Where does Paul state that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God including the mother of Jesus Christ”? It doesn’t.

Mary was to be the new Eve. She is spoken of in the Old Testament as well as the New. The New Eve had to be sinless in order to bear God’s Son.

Jesus, Our Lord and Savior, was the New Adam. If you are going to claim that Mary was a sinner, then how can you claim that Jesus wasn’t also touched by sin since He would have come from an (allegedly) sinful womb?

The truth is that if God can keep His Son (God in the flesh) from the stain of sin, He can also keep the woman He chose to bear Him from sin. And He did.

Yes, Mary needed a Savior as we all do. The difference is that she was saved from original sin before her birth instead of after. She was saved in that manner because God had already chosen her for the purpose of giving birth to and raising His Son. He knew she would say “Yes” but still gave her free will. God is a gentleman. He wouldn’t have forced an unwed virgin to bring His Son into the world.
 
Last edited:
When you were Catholic, did you believe that Catholics idolize the name of Mary? We don’t idolize her or her name. We do love Mary because she is the mother of Our Lord and Savior.

Logically, Mary is the Queen of Heaven because her Divine Son, Jesus, Our Lord and Savior, is the King of Kings, the Lord of lords. He is I Am.
 
lilypadrees… I just wrote this for another person on this site: By coincidence you are talking about it: So I cut and pasted what I wrote here. Too many post to keep up with.

The first of what I would call, a legend about Mary is found in the so-called Proto-Evangelium of James, near the end of the second century and presents a fantastic story about her birth.

It also states that she remained a virgin throughout her entire life. Justin Martyr, who died in 165 compares Mary and Eve, the two prominent women in the Bible. Irenaeus, who died in 202, says that the disobedience of the “virgin Eve” was atoned for by the obedience of the "virgin Mary.

Tertullian, on the other hand, who was one of the greatest authorities in the ancient Church and who died in 222, raised his voice against this teaching concerning Mary’s birth. He must have compared it with the divine record of scripture. He also held that after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph lived in a normal marriage relationship.

The first known picture of Mary is found in the Priscilla catacomb in Rome and dates from the second century. Thus the Christian Church functioned for at least 150 years without idolizing the name of Mary. It wasn’t until the 3 century and beyond that her profile was exalted to a place known today as the queen of heaven.

These facts only show that the eyewitnesses to the life of Mary, along with the first century’s doctrine on sin, only clash when presented along side oral tradition.
 
You conveniently leave out the following about Tertulian: It was after the year 206 that he joined the Montanist sect, and he seems to have definitively separated from the Church about 211 (Harnack) or 213 (Monceaux). After writing more virulently against the Church than even against heathen and persecutors, he separated from the Montanists and founded a sect of his own. The remnant of the Tertullianists was reconciled to the Church by St. Augustine. A number of the works of Tertullian are on special points of belief or discipline. According to St. Jerome he lived to extreme old age. source: Catholic encyclopedia.

?He MUST HAVE COMPARED IT WITH THE DIVINE RECORD OF SCRIPTURE? What, you mean because he (who LEFT THE CHURCH) appears to support your position, so you give HIM authority, but deny the other Church Fathers who disagree with you?

The Church NEVER idolized the name of Mary, the so-called evidence of 'first known picture from the 2nd century is therefore a STRAWMAN on your part which proves nothing.

You are grasping at straws. . .or at least, at strawmen.

Again, please give us the document name, date, and author from "way after the apostles’ who instituted the ‘sinless Mary’ which had NEVER (proof please) been taught. . .
 
tgGodsway said:
Thus the Christian Church functioned for at least 150 years without idolizing the name of Mary.
Click to expand...
The Church also functioned for over 300 years without a set canon of the Bible. I don’t find this Marian argument from silence especially compelling. 😐
 
To the Isaiah and Jeremiah passages quoted here, there is a lot of conjecture going on in your interpretation from my point of view.

I will agree it is possible that the women compassing Christ could be a prophetic voice speaking about the virgin Mary. But I don’t know. There are several points of view on this passage offered throughout church history, none of them explicitly or even implicitly know for sure. Constantine was one of the first to go with her to be the virgin Mary.

The faithless daughter you call Eve in Jer. 31, is another imposed idea without direct validation from scripture. Does not the scripture say,
“Upon the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established?” Who is your biblical witness to EVE?

The rest of your statements, here, in my view, are conjecture, especially your take on the Galatian passage. You kind of make it up with each statement. Please read the Galatian passage in it’s context. Read the entire chapter, it will define itself for you.

Blessings,
 
Last edited:
I am no advocate of Tertullian. Nor did I say that he compared it with scripture. I said he must have. I do not know. But I stand on my opinion stpuri. Today, in my view, Mary is more than idolized. She is queen of heaven, a place given to her by no foundational apostle or gospel writer. Given to her by this elusive thing called oral tradition and papal decree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top