What dear friend, do you find strange about Catholicism?

[frangiuliano115]

FOR PJM

You say:

God is, always has been and always will be the SOURCE of Grace

Ummm. You were saying the CONDUIT of grace and I was responding to that. I KNOW the source of grace.

Also you ask:

Does this make it more clear to you Fran?

You’re very unclear to me.

Thank God He isn’t!

Fran

 

[PJM]

Pjm, you seem to be slurring your words? Hope you are ok.

Thank you, a bit tired but just fine. Thank you so very much for your concern.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[frangiuliano115]

Thanks for asking

In an absolute sense Mary did not NEED to be conceived without the stain of Original sin.

Likewise, God had no obligation to preform this Miracle. It was a freewill choice of his.; who felt that Mary MERITED this grace.

WHY?

Because God who knows all things; KNEW but DID NOT force in any way Mary to always; every-time and in every-way; without failing even one time to accept fully and completely accept and correctly apply God’s gifts of Grace to her.

God KNEW that Mary would NEVER sin; but could not force this condition upon Her. It HAD to be Mary’s Freewill choice. And because Mary choose to never sin; it was God’s view that She Merited to be conceived without sin.

Does that hel you?

Mary Christians!

WHAT???

Is this the reason you were taught why the Immaculate Conception had to be?

How about that Mary had to be immaculate for the simple reason that she was going to bear GOD? And since He’s without sin how could her nature have sin.

See. It’s simple really.

At this point we could bring up Mary’s free will versus God CHOOSING her. Luke 1:30.
And also at what point did she become immaculate? Before cenception, at conception or just after conception?

But we won’t get into that.

Fran

 

[rcwitness]

Kindly disagree. If I recall the story, Paul was addressing the Corinthians as believers, all of them, those that discerned properly and those that did not. Paul would not rebuke a non believer for not being a Christian, but he would rebuke a Christian for not acting Christ like. The disciples that left in john 6 , did not properly believe from the beginning. They were not sheep acting like goats (as in Corinthian case) but goats portraying as sheep.

Blessings

Ok… here is some distinction for sure.

I agree Paul was speaking to believers. I also believe he was correcting their “unbelief” because it was not “belief in Christ” which was compelling their behavior. Therefore, they stood condemned, not because their “initial belief” but through their lack of charity.

It is in a similar (though not identical circumstances) that some of the disciples turned away from Jesus when he prophesied the necessity to partake in His Eucharist. Those men followed Him, until He put forth a demand which they couldn’t understand. Their belief was not enough to continue.

Remember, the John 6 discourse is before Baptism of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It was before Pentecost. Their initial belief did not see the benefit of Baptism and the knowledge of His death and resurrection. The Corinthians had that.

If you can say that the disciples had zero belief in Jesus, then ok. I think they had belief (just like Judas) but not “belief in” Jesus after His demand to eat His flesh and blood.

 

[adrift]

…

At this point we could bring up Mary’s free will versus God CHOOSING her. Luke 1:30.
And also at what point did she become immaculate? Before cenception, at conception or just after conception?

But we won’t get into that.

Fran

The Catholic Church has answered this question with Mary is the Immaculate conception. Why would a Catholic even insinuate something else?
Mary had free will to say yes to God’s chosing her to be Jesus mother. He asked not just imposed motherhood on her. Mary had the free will to answer the angel no instead of “thy will be done” There is not a conflict between Mary’s free will and God Choosing her.

 

[benhur]

If you can say that the disciples had zero belief in Jesus, then ok. I think they had belief (just like Judas) but not “belief in” Jesus after His demand to eat His flesh and blood.

Not sure what zero belief is, for even the devil believes. Jesus says they did not believe from the beginning. Obviously they believed something at the beginning, but not what Jesus was looking for. I disagree if one were to say they believed up to the discourse.They certainly followed up to the discourse but Jesus says they did not believe from the beginning.

But you are right to bring up the prophetic. I would say primarily it was of His death (and ascension) and secondarily of Eucahristing . First things first, for as you state, all would be new, and in the future. The main thrust of the discourse is not to teach about the future, in and of itself, but to use it to separate the sheep from the goats during this formative time of our foundational disciples.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

WHAT???

Is this the reason you were taught why the Immaculate Conception had to be?

How about that Mary had to be immaculate for the simple reason that she was going to bear GOD? And since He’s without sin how could her nature have sin.

See. It’s simple really.

At this point we could bring up Mary’s free will versus God CHOOSING her. Luke 1:30.
And also at what point did she become immaculate? Before cenception, at conception or just after conception?

But we won’t get into that.

Fran

Hi fran,

I think I understand the point that she did not have to be ‘immaculate’. I mean otherwise it diminishes the marvelous fact that God would stoop, out of love, to our level, and leave the Throne to become flesh, on fallen Earth. (Many C’s will say her ‘immaculateness’ was ‘fitting’ but not necessary.)

Your rationale begs the question of how could Mary’s sinful mother bear a perfect, holy (immaculate) child ? Sooner or later holiness has to touch unholiness. Besides, that is OT thought that unholiness corrupts holiness. NT thought says, or shows, that Holiness cleans unholiness. Before if you touched the Ark you died. Now we are the Ark, as He enters us, as His temple. God can not be corrupted by coming into contact with anything He has created, fallen or not.

Blessings

PS The OT had cleansing properties, thoughts, rituals also. Job was ‘perfect’. Enoch was taken.

 

[adrift]

Not sure what zero belief is, for even the devil believes. Jesus says they did not believe from the beginning
Obviously they believed something at the beginning, but not what Jesus was looking for. I disagree if one were to say they believed up to the discourse. They certainly followed up to the discourse but Jesus says they did not believe from the beginning…

Where does Jesus say that they didn’t believe from the beginning. What I read is that Jesus knew from the beginning who would walk away not that they did not believe from the beginning. It was the discourse that they could not believe. They couldn’t believe that they were to eat and drink Jesus’ Body and Blood. They didn’t misunderstand what He was saying that is why they walked away because it was “to hard a saying”. Today there are those who still say it is to hard a saying and walk away.

But you are right to bring up the prophetic. I would say primarily it was of His death (and ascension) and secondarily of Eucahristing . First things first, for as you state, all would be new, and in the future. The main thrust of the discourse is not to teach about the future, in and of itself, but to use it to separate the sheep from the goats during this formative time of our foundational disciples.

Blessings

I do not know what you mean by “Eucahristing”
It is an interesting thought that this was to separate the sheep from the goats. Yet Judas remained.

 

[Wannano]

Ok… here is some distinction for sure.

I agree Paul was speaking to believers. I also believe he was correcting their “unbelief” because it was not “belief in Christ” which was compelling their behavior. Therefore, they stood condemned, not because their “initial belief” but through their lack of charity.

It is in a similar (though not identical circumstances) that some of the disciples turned away from Jesus when he prophesied the necessity to partake in His Eucharist. Those men followed Him, until He put forth a demand which they couldn’t understand. Their belief was not enough to continue.

Remember, the John 6 discourse is before Baptism of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It was before Pentecost. Their initial belief did not see the benefit of Baptism and the knowledge of His death and resurrection. The Corinthians had that.

If you can say that the disciples had zero belief in Jesus, then ok. I think they had belief (just like Judas) but not “belief in” Jesus after His demand to eat His flesh and blood.

I am not a scholar and am prepared to get blown out of the water here but I am stirred to ask something here. John 6:59 says that Jesus taught “these things” in the synagogue so the Jews there questioned His teaching. Then some of His disciples also complained about His hard sayings. When Jesus knew in Himself that some disciples were complaining He confronted them although He knew from the beginning that they were who did not believe in Him. We all know Jesus spoke in ways that were understood only by those whose hearts were open. Sometimes His words had a different meaning for those who really were not listening. So they only envisioned taking a bite out of his arm etc. Gross of course! But the 12 who He spent his private time with had had it explained that He was the bread of life and that they must “eat” that Bread as in allow His kingdom to dwell in them by understanding His words. Peter confirms with his words, "you have the words of eternal life, we have come to know and believe you are the Christ. The Last Supper then is a way of remembering that He gave His life for us and that He now dwells in our hearts.

 

[adrift]

I am not a scholar and am prepared to get blown out of the water here but I am stirred to ask something here. John 6:59 says that Jesus taught “these things” in the synagogue so the Jews there questioned His teaching. Then some of His disciples also complained about His hard sayings. When Jesus knew in Himself that some disciples were complaining He confronted them although He knew from the beginning that they were who did not believe in Him.

As I said in the previous post, Jesus knew from the beginning who would leave Him not that they did not believe from the beginning. They believed in Jesus until He taught that which was to hard for them to accept

We all know Jesus spoke in ways that were understood only by those whose hearts were open. Sometimes His words had a different meaning for those who really were not listening.

We know that Jesus did not allow misunderstandings.

So they only envisioned taking a bite out of his arm etc. Gross of course! But the 12 who He spent his private time with had had it explained that He was the bread of life and that they must “eat” that Bread as in allow His kingdom to dwell in them by understanding His words. Peter confirms with his words, "you have the words of eternal life, we have come to know and believe you are the Christ. The Last Supper then is a way of remembering that He gave His life for us and that He now dwells in our hearts.

Where is the scripture that Jesus said this privately?
At verse 26 Jesus begins by telling the crowd they are following Him not because of the signs Jesus performed but to fill their bellies. Jesus then begins to speak of food that will never perish. From verse 26 to verse 50 they understood to be allegorical but Jesus corrects their misunderstanding.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Jesus asks the Apostles if they too will leave because of this hard saying. Peter’s does confirm his belief in Jesus and ask where they should go even though Jesus offers no explanation until the last supper in which Jesus declares this IS my Body and this Is my Blood.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi benhur (and Fran),

Hi fran,

I think I understand the point that she did not have to be ‘immaculate’. I mean otherwise it diminishes the marvelous fact that God would stoop, out of love, to our level, and leave the Throne to become flesh, on fallen Earth. (Many C’s will say her ‘immaculateness’ was ‘fitting’ but not necessary.)

Your rationale begs the question of how could Mary’s sinful mother bear a perfect, holy (immaculate) child ? Sooner or later holiness has to touch unholiness. Besides, that is OT thought that unholiness corrupts holiness. NT thought says, or shows, that Holiness cleans unholiness. Before if you touched the Ark you died. Now we are the Ark, as He enters us, as His temple. God can not be corrupted by coming into contact with anything He has created, fallen or not.

Blessings

PS The OT had cleansing properties, thoughts, rituals also. Job was ‘perfect’. Enoch was taken.

Indeed, I think we can at least agree that it is possible for a sinful mother (Anne or Mary) to give birth to a sinless child (Mary or Jesus) – even if we may never agree on what actually happened.

 

[Wannano]

As I said in the previous post, Jesus knew from the beginning who would leave Him not that they did not believe from the beginning. They believed in Jesus until He taught that which was to hard for them to accept.

I did not see the previous post until after I posted. However, we must be reading it differently. The KJV John 6:63&64 “it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profited nothing:the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.”

To me this says he knew all along who were not believing. No one left him at this point, they left after he told them in v 65 “that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” After that statement they left.

 

[adrift]

I did not see the previous post until after I posted.

I think I was posting as you were. Easily to miss others. Especially when it moves fast.

However, we must be reading it differently. The KJV John 6:63&64 “it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profited nothing:the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.”

To me this says he knew all along who were not believing. No one left him at this point, they left after he told them in v 65 “that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” After that statement they left.

I don’t disagree with you. I think:shrug: I wasn’t sure if you were agreeing with another poster who said that they didn’t believe from the beginning. I believe at first they did believe until what Jesus said was to hard and then they didn’t follow Him anymore. From the beginning Jesus knew this.

 

[frangiuliano115]

The Catholic Church has answered this question with Mary is the Immaculate conception. Why would a Catholic even insinuate something else?
Mary had free will to say yes to God’s chosing her to be Jesus mother. He asked not just imposed motherhood on her. ** Mary had the free will to answer the angel no** instead of “thy will be done” There is not a conflict between Mary’s free will and God Choosing her.

Mary had the free will to say no??

What if she had said no?

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi fran,

I think I understand the point that she did not have to be ‘immaculate’. I mean otherwise it diminishes the marvelous fact that God would stoop, out of love, to our level, and leave the Throne to become flesh, on fallen Earth. (Many C’s will say her ‘immaculateness’ was ‘fitting’ but not necessary.)

Your rationale begs the question of how could Mary’s sinful mother bear a perfect, holy (immaculate) child ? Sooner or later holiness has to touch unholiness. Besides, that is OT thought that unholiness corrupts holiness. NT thought says, or shows, that Holiness cleans unholiness. Before if you touched the Ark you died. Now we are the Ark, as He enters us, as His temple. God can not be corrupted by coming into contact with anything He has created, fallen or not.

Blessings

PS The OT had cleansing properties, thoughts, rituals also. Job was ‘perfect’. Enoch was taken.

Benhur,

Kind of brings us back to the Eucharist doesn’t it?
Holiness touching unholiness…

Yes. God cannot be corrupted.

Fran

 

[DHarris1995]

What I find a bit strange is how broken Roman Catholics are in the way they practice their faith. Now, I do not mean to offend but I attended the Catholic mass many times in my life and found that every time that I went, people were always trying to put on a big show; the fancy suits, the fancy shoes, and do not get me started on the womens’ perfume!

Also, K find it odd that Catholics call their priests, ‘Father.’ I have NEVER accepted his practice because in the Bible, Jesus clearly states that we are not to call anyone by the name father except our biological father and of course God the Father.

All in all, I respect Catholics as my Christian brothers and sisters, but I do not feel the Catholic Church is for me.

God Bless!

 

[adrift]

Mary had the free will to say no??

What if she had said no?

God would have accepted her free will. Aren’t we fortunate that she said yes?

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi benhur (and Fran),

Indeed, I think we can at least agree that it is possible for a sinful mother (Anne or Mary) to give birth to a sinless child (Mary or Jesus) – even if we may never agree on what actually happened.

Of course we have to agree.

I mean, how “far back” are we willing to go??

Catholic theology says that at the moment of conception (we’d need a physicist to explain “moment”) Mary’s O.S. was miraculously removed by God.

So she was holy, in an unholy vessel (Anne). We say that God can do anything. But definitely we say that the reason Mary had to be immaculate is so Jesus could be in a holy vessel.
Catholics believe this is so important that it is a dogma, which means that all catholics must believe this.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

What I find a bit strange is how broken Roman Catholics are in the way they practice their faith. Now, I do not mean to offend but I attended the Catholic mass many times in my life and found that every time that I went, people were always trying to put on a big show; the fancy suits, the fancy shoes, and do not get me started on the womens’ perfume!

Also, K find it odd that Catholics call their priests, ‘Father.’ I have NEVER accepted his practice because in the Bible, Jesus clearly states that we are not to call anyone by the name father except our biological father and of course God the Father.

All in all, I respect Catholics as my Christian brothers and sisters, but I do not feel the Catholic Church is for me.

God Bless!

Where have you been to Mass? I’m coming over!

Here people are dressed kind of sporty and casual. I used to like getting dressed up on Sundays. It made the day seem more special.

I know you’re going to say this is an outward and unimportant feeling, but it sort of made one feel like they were respecting God. Maybe some were doing it for “show” too.

A sister,
Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

God would have accepted her free will. Aren’t we fortunate that she said yes?

Adrift

It’s not so easy.

She could not have said no.

Read Luke 1:31

That doesn’t sound like a request to me.

I’m ending it here - it’s too off topic.

Fran