Trouble Converting

  • Thread starter Thread starter JesusReigns
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JesusReigns

Guest
Hello all. May God bless those richly who read and have answers and lead us all to Truth as we converse, in Jesus name, Amen.

So im in RCIA. I basically grew up pentecostal/church of god and right now im having some trouble with specific catholic beliefs that worry me. It’s mainly two honestly that hold me back:
  1. Mary’s sinlessnes. Yes i know, she was called “Full of Grace” and that this is perfect tense, but that doesn’t quite p(name removed by moderator)oint it for me.
  2. Oaths. The bible on two occasions says not to sear by Oaths. and some early fathers said not to. I’ve been told this hyperbole and understand what the catechism says on the issue, but im honestly in fear that God will be angry at me brushing this off and not adhering to what Jesus said about oaths and as did the book of James pretty blatantly
God bless.
 
Last edited:
God, in the form of Jesus, needed to come from someone who was sinless.
 
This is a good stance honestly… However, how could she really have been CONCEIVED without sin? where did this idea come from exactly? I can see her being sinless in a sense… I mean hey, John the Baptist was born with the Holy Spirit, But how could she have been conceived sinless in the very womb?
 
Its hard for me to see her sinning honestly…haha. But just cause i feel that way doesn’t meant thats true.
 
If you believe in the saints, it was revealed to St. Bernadette that Mary was the “Immaculate Conception”. Although, I think there was talk of this before then.
 
We believe that Mary, because God chose her to bear the Son, had to be sinless. God cannot be born of impurity. It’s against His very nature, since He is all good. To have been born of a sinner, would bring doubt as to His true identity and cause people not believe in Him It just wouldn’t happen.

Read this from Fr Eschert of EWTN:
The certain and ancient tradition of the Church is that Mary conceived as Virgin, gave birth as Virgin, and remains Virgin in eternity. Testimony on all three aspects of the Virgin Mary can be found in the ancient writings of the Church Fathers. As to the manner in which Mary gave birth virginally, a common view among the Fathers is to liken it to the Tomb of Christ, by which our Lord passed through the entrance way of the Tomb without needing to roll away the stone, as He passed from the Virgin’s womb without violation of her integrity. The analogy is even more intriguing when one considers that both the Womb and the Tomb were virginal, that is, never used for any other purpose than for Christ.
 
You know, the Eastern Orthodox do not have the same view of original sin as Catholics do, nevertheless, Orthodox, most of the ones I know it least will say that Mary was preserved from sin throughout her life. I mean, it’s kind of hard to get any closer to God than being his mother. If God can become a baby in the womb, why could he not protect the mother that bears that womb from sin? I think it’s kind of trying to limit God, when you say stuff like that, I don’t mean you necessarily., I think you’re asking honest questions.
 
Last edited:
The Apostles taught that she was sinless, it’s Apostolic Tradition. It stems from her Immaculate Conception, and her Assumption into heaven teaches she went straight to heaven. The assumption was witnessed by St. Peter and St. John.

She was given to us as a mother at the cross, and her protection from sin and the devil stemmed from Jesus’ merits at the cross. The early church treated her as a sinless mother, it was her role and mission, We are the family of God.
 
[> quote=“JesusReigns, post:4, topic:451688, full:true”]
This is a good stance honestly… However, how could she really have been CONCEIVED without sin? where did this idea come from exactly? I can see her being sinless in a sense… I mean hey, John the Baptist was born with the Holy Spirit, But how could she have been conceived sinless in the very womb?
Click to expand...
[/quote]

Do you not believe that God knitted her in the womb? Because if you do, then you ought to also believe that everything is possible with God.

As for the logic, it is simple. Jesus is the only man in all of history who is also God. Since He is God, then He is also the only man who had the opportunity to protect His mother at the moment of conception. If you were able, would you not protect your mother from Satan at the moment of conception?

I would protect mine.
 
JesusReigns said:
Its hard for me to see her sinning honestly…haha. But just cause i feel that way doesn’t meant thats true.
Click to expand...
The New Covenant is a new creation. The first creation was initiated by two people conceived without sin. The new creation must also be.

In the first creation, the immaculate man was created first and the woman was pulled from him.
In the new creation, the immaculate woman was created first and the man was pulled from her.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

In the first creation, the woman was tempted by a fallen angel and fell.
In the new creation, the woman was approached by one of God’s angels and undid the sin.

Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women…38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

In the first creation, the man named her the mother of all the living.
In the new creation, the man named her the mother of all those whom God loved, all those with eternal life.

John 19: 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
https://stpeterslist.com/6-biblical-reasons-mary-is-the-new-eve
 
As for the swearing of oaths, St. Paul writes to Timothy (1 Tim 1:10) about perjurers (literally a false swearer). If Christians are not permitted to take any oath at all, than there should be no perjurers at all.

When Jesus was before Pilate he refused to speak until he was placed under oath, he did not refuse this and remain silent, instead he spoke (Matt 26:63-64).

God also swore an oath upon himself (Gen 22:16, Heb 6:13).

Biblically speaking, oath taking itself is not wrong, but it should not be used for frivolous reasons and if your yes means yes and no means no everyday, than oath taking should be unnecessary except under special circumstances.
 
interesting… would you happen to have any evidence/info on St. John and St. Peters witness of her assumption?
 
JesusReigns said:
interesting… would you happen to have any evidence/info on St. John and St. Peters witness of her assumption?
Click to expand...
Yes. Rev 12:1 is St. John’s witness of her bodily assumption. Notice that he recounts his witness of the Mother of the Messiah being crowned with 12 stars in heaven. Although he doesn’t mention her name, we all know the name of the Mother of the Messiah.
 
Hey all, thank you so much for the replies. May the Lord Bless you all for your blessings towards me in this forum.I am continuing to grow stronger and discerning the faith. “All generations will call me blessed…” is truly a profound prophecy by Mary that can not dismissed, and very well may the be the verse that utterly and completely proves Catholicism. GOD BLESS IN JESUS NAME WITH LOVE, Amen.
 
  1. Immaculate Conception of Mary. There is a good 1-page summary of historical references in bullet point form here: https://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/maryc3a.htm
    You have to keep in mind that virtually no dogma emerged in its full form in 33 AD. These dogmas evolved as understanding deepened and questions were asked in more and more detail. This is NOT to suggest that there are “new” dogmas or doctrines–they’re aren’t. It’s just that we have a better understanding now than in the past, and we will have a better understanding in 1,000 years than now.
  2. Oaths. You grew up Pentecostal, you say. So first, you have to understand that the Catholic understanding of the Bible is, in many ways, fundamentally different than the Protestant understanding, particularly the more fundamentalist groups. You can find the official Catholic position in Dei Verbum, a document of Vatican II available here: (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
This is paraphrased in the Catechism on pp. 32-33, available here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
 
Part 2—

First, which came first, the Church or the New Testament? The Church began on Pentecost. The New Testament? Scholars all agree that the first writings we have are some epistles of Paul, c. 50 AD; the last part of the New Testament is the Gospel of John, c. 90 AD. So we’ve got a period of roughly 17 (50-33) years where there was no writing we currently accept as part of the New Testament; but it was about 57 years (90-33) before the Church had the New Testament in its entirety. So if the New Testament governs everything the Church does, you need to explain what happened in those 57 years. If, on the other hand, you take the Catholic position, that oral tradition has an equal position with the New Testament, then there is no problem because the New Testament is simply the oral tradition written down. The Church validates the New Testament, not the other way around.

Secondly, fundamentalists, whether Protestant or Catholic, often interpret the Bible in a very literal way. This is not the official Catholic position, as you can see by reading Dei Verbum or the catechism.

Third. Pay particular attention to p. 32 of the Catechism: “…the reader must take into account the conditions of their [the authors’] time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current.”

Let’s take some examples from English.
“The painting was a jewel.” Really? A diamond? An emerald?
“His cold stare cut her heart.” So somehow a look turned into a knife???
“The curtain of night descended…” So night has a curtain??? Cotton? Silk?
They’re metaphors. A = B, but only as a literary means of comparison of one thing to another. We would certainly never say “The author is lying. A stare can’t cut.” etc. But if you ignored the literary conventions of English in 2017, you might.

So now you’re really, really concerned about commands in Matthew and James never to swear an oath. Any other Biblical commands that bother you?
How about “Thou shalt not kill.” But we do kill. Police do. Soldiers do. If you killed in self defense or to protect your family, are you disobeying God? No?
How about the young man who approached Jesus and wanted to be his follower? Jesus said, “Go, sell all you have and give it to the poor, then come follow me.” So you can’t be a Christian if you own property? Have you sold your house and car to prepare for baptism? No? Why not?
Or “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.” So we know it’s impossible for a camel to get through the eye of a needle…does that mean no rich people will be allowed into Heaven? Really?
These types of expressions are scattered throughout the Bible. I’m sure there is a nice Greek term for this literary device. But to take them literally is to miss the point and to misinterpret them.

Should you take unnecessary oaths? I.e., should you take the name of the Lord in vain (2nd commandment)? No. Don’t swear unnecessary oaths. How many oaths have you actually sworn in your life? I can think of only two I have ever sworn.
 
Last edited:
The Book of Revelation speaks of Mary; not just the Book of Luke.

“The woman clothed in the sun”

“the woman with a crown of 12 stars”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top