Why do other faiths believe we have pagan roots?

[Randy_Carson]

I want to add this very important scripture to the discussion regarding Mary’s sinless conception.

Luke 1:46 "Mary said…“My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God, my SAVIOUR”

If Mary was born sinless, why does she need a Saviour?
Only sinners need a Saviour.
Jesus was sinless and he was the Saviour.

This scripture does pose a huge problem in being able to believe that Mary was an immaculate (without sin) conception.
Carmen

No, Carmen, there is not a “huge problem”. Let me explain,

How Can Mary Be Sinless When She Rejoices in God, Her Savior?
A Catholic Understanding of Luke 1:47

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is one of the Four Marian Dogmas taught by the Catholic Church. Long-believed and formally proclaimed in 1854, this dogma teaches that Mary was without sin from the moment of her conception and remained sinless her entire life.

One argument frequently advanced by those who do not agree with the Church’s teaching is based upon Mary’s own words found in the Gospel of Luke: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” (Luke 1:46-47) If Mary declares that she needs a savior, then she must have been a sinner—or so the reasoning goes.

The Catholic Church does not hesitate to profess that Mary needed a savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

It was by the grace of God—and not the work of Mary—that she was saved from sin in a most perfect manner. By what is called “preservative redemption,” Mary was preserved from sin at the time of her natural conception. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15), and Mary was sanctified at her conception. It is no difficulty that Christ distributed the grace of Calvary some forty-five years or so before it happened, just as he bestows it upon us two thousand years after the fact. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that this gift was given to Mary, making her “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him?

Would you protect your mother from needless suffering if you had the power to do so?

 

[carmenp1]

Dear Carmen,

By your post you have just displayed that you believe all the twisted lies about the Catholic Church that have been perpetrated over the centuries. They have all been refuted by sincere and articulate people and there is no necessity for them to be refuted here.

May the Lord lead you to prayerfully study the history of the Church.

There is opportunity for you to do so right here in this site.

Peace in Jesus,

Dorothy

Message from Ralph Woodrow regarding the book BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION

For a number of years my book BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION was very popular, enjoyed a wide circulation, and was translated into various languages. To this day, we do not cease to receive orders and inquiries about it. Despite its popularity, several years ago we pulled it out of print and now offer a replacement book THE BABYLON CONNECTION?

Because misinformation about this decision persists on the Internet, and in other ways, the aim of this article is to set the record straight.

According to one rumor, “the Catholics” put so much pressure on me, I had a heart attack and almost died! Consequently, I “recanted” and wrote the other book. There is no truth to this!

 

[slh3016]

Dear Carmen,

Why stop at just cutting and pasting a very small portion of Ralph Woodrow’s message? I sincerely hope it wasn’t to deceive.

The full text can be found here and, if you read the entire text, he basically says that his trying to link Roman Catholicism to Babylon/paganism was erroneous and that he used faulty logic. He further states that if those connections refute Catholicism, they refute the Bible and Christianity as a whole (which includes your Baptist church).

 

[carmenp1]

carmenp1:
Originally Posted by Dorothy View Post

May the Lord lead you to prayerfully study the history of the Church.

Dorothy,
I was converted from Catholicism to Christ. I attend a Baptist church. When I left Tasmania, it took me a couple of years to find a church I could go to that was not dead. By that I mean, a church without the presence of God.

God moved me to Werribee. My daughter came home from school and said “Mum there is this kid at school, he was one of the worst kids but he has changed. He is so different. I asked my daughter, what church does he go to? She said the Suburban Baptist church. I said, Candice, that is where God is.”

We started going there and the presence of God was evident. This church was not dead, it had the presence of God and God was at work changing lives. That was back in 2002. While the presence of God remains in this church, so will I.

I am a convert to Jesus Christ, not to a church.

God’s Word is the authority by which we live our lives according to His will. I study the Word of God, prayerfully and with a desire to know my Saviour more and more each day. It is by His Word that our faith grows and with faith achieve those promises given to us by God.
Carmen

 

[carmenp1]

Dear Carmen,

Why stop at just cutting and pasting a very small portion of Ralph Woodrow’s message? I sincerely hope it wasn’t to deceive.

The full text can be found here and, if you read the entire text, he basically says that his trying to link Roman Catholicism to Babylon/paganism was erroneous and that he used faulty logic. He further states that if those connections refute Catholicism, they refute the Bible and Christianity as a whole (which includes your Baptist church).

It wasn’t to deceive. Woodrow denies recanting.

 

[carmenp1]

To find answers to the question of whether the Catholic church has blended paganism with the bible teachings you need to go to the authority of the Word of God.

 

[carmenp1]

For example, the doctrine that Mary was sinless. Why would God bring her into the world sinless. The deity of Christ was sinless. He was to be our Saviour. He had to be sinless to do that. Why would Jesus need his mother to be sinless? It must be backed up with scripture before you can place you belief on the doctrine of an immaculate conception.
There is no scripture to back this doctrine up. God says that men shouldn’t add to the word of God. This is not God confirming this to be true but men.

 

[carmenp1]

One of the oldest is History of The Church by Eusebius. It is the pioneer work giving a chronological account of the development of The Early Church. It was written around A.D. 300 so it is very close to the events it records.

Did Paul or any of the apostles and saints that were converted to Christ teach church history. The only history they taught came from the Old Testament which proved that Jesus was who He said He was. And by this many believed their report. You need to be well studied in the Word of God so you can convert someone to Christ.

To convert to Catholicism is not the same thing as converting someone to Christ.
Carmen

 

[slh3016]

Quote:
Originally Posted by slh3016
Dear Carmen,

Why stop at just cutting and pasting a very small portion of Ralph Woodrow’s message? I sincerely hope it wasn’t to deceive.

It wasn’t to deceive. Woodrow denies recanting.

The full text can be found here and, if you read the entire text, he basically says that his trying to link Roman Catholicism to Babylon/paganism was erroneous and that he used faulty logic. He further states that if those connections refute Catholicism, they refute the Bible and Christianity as a whole (which includes your Baptist church).

Please read the entire message by Woodrow. I don’t think he is explicitly denying recanting but is denying that Catholic’s put so much pressure on him that he had a heart attack and nearly died. Your presupposition convinced you that he meant otherwise. However, if you read the entire message, you will find that he says,

“My original book had some valuable information in it. But it also contained certain teachings that were made popular in a book many years ago, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop. This book claims that the very religion of ancient Babylon, under the leadership of Nimrod and his wife, was later disguised with Christian-sounding names, becoming the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, two “Babylons”—one ancient and one modern. Proof for this is sought by citing numerous similarities in paganism. The problem with this method is this: in many cases there is no connection."

He goes on to say,

“By this method, one could condemn Protestant and evangelical denominations like the Assemblies of God, Baptist, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist, Nazarene, etc. Basic things like prayer, and kneeling in prayer, would have to be rejected, because pagans knelt and prayed to their gods. Water baptism would have to be rejected, for pagans had numerous rites involving water, etc.”

 

[Dorothy]

Originally Posted by Dorothy View Post

May the Lord lead you to prayerfully study the history of the Church.

Dorothy,
I was converted from Catholicism to Christ. I attend a Baptist church. When I left Tasmania, it took me a couple of years to find a church I could go to that was not dead. By that I mean, a church without the presence of God.

God moved me to Werribee. My daughter came home from school and said “Mum there is this kid at school, he was one of the worst kids but he has changed. He is so different. I asked my daughter, what church does he go to? She said the Suburban Baptist church. I said, Candice, that is where God is.”

We started going there and the presence of God was evident. This church was not dead, it had the presence of God and God was at work changing lives. That was back in 2002. While the presence of God remains in this church, so will I.

I am a convert to Jesus Christ, not to a church.

God’s Word is the authority by which we live our lives according to His will. I study the Word of God, prayerfully and with a desire to know my Saviour more and more each day. It is by His Word that our faith grows and with faith achieve those promises given to us by God.
Carmen

Carmen,

I do not doubt that some people attend a church which is not Catholic and the loving people there truly love the Lord and attract others. God is good and He honors faith.

The fact that you were attracted to the church you went to does not discredit the fullness of truth that is found in the Catholic Church.

Randy Carson in posts # 41 and 42 adequately answered your question about the Blessed Virgin’s sinlessness. I hope you will read those posts, and with the grace of the Holy Spirit, understand them. You mentioned that you study the word of God every day, so I trust you will read and pray to understand.

Please do not post in those colors, it is hard for aging eyes to read.

 

[oneofmany]

It may be from the conversion of Pagans to Christianity like this story. People say Christianity is based on Paganism when in reality the early Christians were converting Pagans so the stories get intertwined.

ewtn.com/library/chistory/xmastree.htm

St Boniface, eighth-century Bishop

An interesting tradition, part history, part legend and very popular in Germany, claims that the Christmas tree dates back to the eighth century. This legend is based on a historical figure, St Boniface, and even a historical event, the destruction of Odin’s oak. St Boniface (675-754) was the English Bishop Winfrid who went to Germany in the eighth century, to Hesse to be precise, to preach the Christian faith as a missionary from the Church of Rome. After a period of apparently successful Gospel preaching, Boniface went to Rome to confer with Pope Gregory II (715-731). After a long absence, he returned to Geismar, Germany, for Christmas 723, and felt personally offended on discovering that the Germans had reverted to their former idolatry of pagan divinities and were preparing to celebrate the winter solstice by sacrificing a young man under Odin’s sacred oak tree. Fired by holy anger, as was Moses by the golden calf, Bishop Boniface took up an axe and dared to cut down the oak. This courageous, historically documented act meant the triumph of Christianity in Germany over the pagan divinities.

All this is historically documented. The rest belongs to the legend which tells how, at the first blow of the axe, a strong gust of wind instantly brought down the tree. The astounded Germans fearfully recognized the hand of God in this event and humbly asked Boniface how they should celebrate Christmas. The Bishop, the legend continues, pointed to a small fir tree that had miraculously remained upright and intact beside the debris and broken branches of the fallen oak. Boniface was familiar with the popular custom of taking an evergreen plant into the house in winter and asked everyone to take home a fir tree. This tree signifies peace, and as an evergreen it also symbolizes immortality; with its top pointing upwards, it additionally indicates heaven, the dwelling place of God.

 

[prodromos]

Originally Posted by Dorothy View Post

May the Lord lead you to prayerfully study the history of the Church.

Dorothy,
I was converted from Catholicism to Christ. I attend a Baptist church. When I left Tasmania, it took me a couple of years to find a church I could go to that was not dead. By that I mean, a church without the presence of God.

God moved me to Werribee. My daughter came home from school and said “Mum there is this kid at school, he was one of the worst kids but he has changed. He is so different. I asked my daughter, what church does he go to? She said the Suburban Baptist church. I said, Candice, that is where God is.”

We started going there and the presence of God was evident. This church was not dead, it had the presence of God and God was at work changing lives. That was back in 2002. While the presence of God remains in this church, so will I.

I am a convert to Jesus Christ, not to a church.

God’s Word is the authority by which we live our lives according to His will. I study the Word of God, prayerfully and with a desire to know my Saviour more and more each day. It is by His Word that our faith grows and with faith achieve those promises given to us by God.
Carmen
you are only half an hour from the Orthodox Convent at Geelong. You should check it out!
Corner of Monastery Rd and Bluestone Bridge Rd in Lovely Banks
gorgoepikoos.org.au/

 

[Randy_Carson]

To find answers to the question of whether the Catholic church has blended paganism with the bible teachings you need to go to the authority of the Word of God.

You do understand that all of the first Christians WERE Catholics, right?

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

For example, the doctrine that Mary was sinless. Why would God bring her into the world sinless. The deity of Christ was sinless. He was to be our Saviour. He had to be sinless to do that. Why would Jesus need his mother to be sinless? It must be backed up with scripture before you can place you belief on the doctrine of an immaculate conception.

When you have important guests for dinner, do you straighten the house before they arrive? Cook something special? Use the good dished? Understandably, it is fitting that you “roll out the red carpet” for a special guest.

Over the centuries, the Fathers and doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the Ark of the Covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the Ten Commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (an instrument of Israel’s redemption). If this box was created with such honor—to carry a stick, some bread, and stone tablets—how much more should Mary be made a worthy dwelling place for God himself? She is the new Ark of the Covenant because she carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the instrument of our redemption, Jesus’ body.

Some argue that the new ark is not Mary but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would seem to be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box and not sanctifying the womb who carried the Holy One himself. After all, wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 [NAB]).

There is no scripture to back this doctrine up. God says that men shouldn’t add to the word of God. This is not God confirming this to be true but men.

We don’t “add to” the Word of God; we understand it. As I stated previously:

An implicit reference can also be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary in Luke 1:28: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. This means that the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was not only as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called “full of grace.”

So, we DO have an implicit scriptural reference of Mary’s sinlessness, and this is an inconvenient truth for anti-Catholics who do not want to let go of their false accusations.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Did Paul or any of the apostles and saints that were converted to Christ teach church history. The only history they taught came from the Old Testament which proved that Jesus was who He said He was. And by this many believed their report. You need to be well studied in the Word of God so you can convert someone to Christ.

To convert to Catholicism is not the same thing as converting someone to Christ.
Carmen

When someone is baptized into the Body of Christ, he or she becomes a member of the Church. Historically, the one Church that Jesus promised to build (cf. Mt. 16:18) has referred to itself as the Catholic Church.

So, you’re suggesting a dichotomy where none exists.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Did Paul or any of the apostles and saints that were converted to Christ teach church history. The only history they taught came from the Old Testament which proved that Jesus was who He said He was. And by this many believed their report. You need to be well studied in the Word of God so you can convert someone to Christ.

To convert to Catholicism is not the same thing as converting someone to Christ.
Carmen

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to respond to something that someone else posted, you can simply hit the “Quote” button on the lower right…not the “Post Reply” button on the lower left. Simply begin typing after the text that the forum automatically copies for you. That’s what I did at the beginning of this post above.

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text. To begin a quote, you must insert {quote} at the beginning of the passage and {/quote} at the end. The / is the key to ending the quoted section. Here’s what it would look like:

{quote} Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, {/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote} and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put. {/quote} Hope this helps.

Remember, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ] so that the paragraph above comes out like this:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,

I’m inserting my comments here in red.

and everywhere that Mary went his sooty foot he put.

Hope this helps.

One more thing: the quote function will automatically insert the name of the person to whom you are replying so that person can find your response more easily.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please read the entire message by Woodrow. I don’t think he is explicitly denying recanting but is denying that Catholic’s put so much pressure on him that he had a heart attack and nearly died. Your presupposition convinced you that he meant otherwise. However, if you read the entire message, you will find that he says,

“My original book had some valuable information in it. But it also contained certain teachings that were made popular in a book many years ago, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop. This book claims that the very religion of ancient Babylon, under the leadership of Nimrod and his wife, was later disguised with Christian-sounding names, becoming the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, two “Babylons”—one ancient and one modern. Proof for this is sought by citing numerous similarities in paganism. The problem with this method is this: in many cases there is no connection."

He goes on to say,

“By this method, one could condemn Protestant and evangelical denominations like the Assemblies of God, Baptist, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist, Nazarene, etc. Basic things like prayer, and kneeling in prayer, would have to be rejected, because pagans knelt and prayed to their gods. Water baptism would have to be rejected, for pagans had numerous rites involving water, etc.”

:clapping:

 

[carmenp1]

First, I note that you have ignored or remained silent on TWO posts that discredit Babylon Mystery Religion, the book of anti-Catholic propaganda you cited previously. It might be appropriate to for you to retract your previous statements and apologize to all Catholics for calling our faith into question as a result of false information contained in the book?

Second, where does the Bible teach that everything we know about our faith must be found explicitly stated in the Bible? (It doesn’t.) The Bible does not contain the word “trinity” nor does it contain an inspired table of contents. Some things are known by implicit reference, others by Tradition. But we can discuss that in another thread. For now, I will focus on providing the answer to your two questions quoted above.

Mary – Full of Grace (kecharitomene)

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you”

The angel Gabriel didn’t, say that. You have miss quoted the bible.**He said “Rejoice highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blesses are you among women”

Your interpretation is for ‘full of grace’. Highly favored or blessed are pretty straight forward and no one needs a translation from any other source, except a DICTIONARY.
You have to go to great verbal gymnastics to make those two phrases mean Mary was sinless.**

(Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

If only you were as zealous to defend and exhort the deity, and the supreme love and suffering Jesus did for me.

What did Mary do for me? Did she offer her sinless state as a satisfactory offering to turn away God’s wrath for sin? She could have spared her Son. What mother wouldn’t do that for her first born son.

But she didn’t because she couldn’t. God’s plan was for Mary to be the mother of the Savor. But that’s all. Mary fades into the background. Mentioned only sparodically once Jesus neared the time He would begin His ministry.

You have a wealth of adoration, veneration and exalt Mary to the point where she eclipses Jesus.

Jesus gets forgotten mostly. He has poor publicity from all you have written. Mary, on the other hand, has the place of honor. Pray to Mary, Jesus will listen to her; (but not anyone else?). Insisting that Mary was sinless makes her like God. Jesus, the full expression of the Godhead, the Son of God, was sinless. His character is holy. Like God, He cannot sin. It would be against His character.

So, you are saying Mary was, like God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit sinless with the same character, unable to sin against that character. If sin entered into the presence of God, His holiness would break out and judge it immediately. Jesus came in the likeness of man, suffered as all men suffer but because He was the chosen One, the Lamb of God, the Son of God, sinless, He obeyed everything God told Him to do.

I have not come to do My own will, but the will of He who sent Me. And He was obedient even up to death.

God hid Moses in the cleft of a rock so all he would see was God’s behind as He passed. Moses was righteous by faith. Not because he was holy! He did some bad stuff and he paid the price.

You impute a personal indwelling by character which is their righteousness. When God refers to some one as being righteous, He is imputing it because they HAVE FAITH.
Faith! Our own righteousness is like a filthy rag.

If you find scripture to validate all the claims made about Mary, I would love to read them.
May God bless you
Carmen

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1 [ante A.D. 446]).

 

[carmenp1]

First, I note that you have ignored or remained silent on TWO posts that discredit Babylon Mystery Religion, the book of anti-Catholic propaganda you cited previously. It might be appropriate to for you to retract your previous statements and apologize to all Catholics for calling our faith into question as a result of false information contained in the book?

The author said that catholics say he recanted. He says he didn’t!

I would like to know why you have to refer to so many external references to give doctrine it’s validity. Not that you have proven your case. The bible, being the Authority upon which we form our beliefs doesn’t mention any of your reasons for Mary,s exalted state nor your other points.

How can you believe doctrine of men when the bible doesn’t back it up?

The question of whether the church has blended paganism with Christianity can only be answered by testing each doctrine or belief against God’s Word.

Second, where does the Bible teach that everything we know about our faith must be found explicitly stated in the Bible? (It doesn’t.) The Bible does not contain the word “trinity” nor does it contain an inspired table of contents. Some things are known by implicit reference, others by Tradition. But we can discuss that in another thread. For now, I will focus on providing the answer to your two questions quoted above.

Mary – Full of Grace (kecharitomene)

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind.

Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”.

Like “hail Caesar!”

Is that where the “hail Mary” comes from?

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

“My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate.” (ibid.)

If Mary was as holy, sinless as Jesus why didn’t she die in His place? What mother wouldn’t do that? God needed a sinless offering to satisfy His wrath and redeem us, He gave us a Saviour.

. You haven’t answered either question.
Where is the scripture that calls Mary sinless?

I will answer you.
Jesus said, man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God.

The author denied he recanted

If only you were as zealous for Jesus Christ who died for you! Not Mary

 

[slh3016]

Carmen,

First, Randy explained very nicely how to insert your own comments in someone else’s quotes by FIRST ending their quote with , typing your own comments, and then resuming their quote with

.

In code,

QUOTE] = beginning of quote
/QUOTE] = end of quote

NOTE: Don’t put a space between the first bracket and next character. I only had to do that because it was creating a quote in my own comment where I did not want one.

It is very confusing trying to determine what your comments are.

Secondly, it has already been pointed out to you the GREEK word used in Luke 1:28 for Gabriel’s greeting to Mary. Please don’t be so naive as to believe that the face value of what you read in English is the exact meaning of the original Greek word, because IT IS NOT! You need a proper understanding of the Greek word to understand the greeting that Gabriel gave to Mary. I beg you to heed the explanation already provided and not simply gloss over it.

Thirdly, I get where you are coming from, I really do, because it would not have been that long ago that I was where you are. Two years ago, my BFF called me to inform me she was considering converting to Catholicism and she wanted me to be her devil’s advocate and research the Church TO TRY TO PROVE HER WRONG. Guess what, I can’t, and by the grace of God, will be entering RCIA in the fall.

If you are going to come to CAF and make absurd statements about the Catholic faith, you MUST be intellectually honest in those assertions and with yourself. You cannot quote a book that has admittedly been discredited BY ITS OWN AUTHOR as not being scholarly or intellectually honest (which has been shown to you several times already) and then continue to assert that book as proof of anything. At the very least, you should apologize for using a discredited book to support your own prejudices. No one can force you to change your mind about the Catholic Church, but you have to realize that it is simply your own fallible opinion. If you want to be intellectually honest with us and yourself, you need to do the work of digging into church history and teaching OVER THE LAST 2,000 years and not just in the last 500.

Fourthly, I understand wanting to be part of a church where you are “fed” and “feel the Spirit.” But, please understand that feelings are subjective but Truth is not. Think about someone with clinical depression. His feelings or perception of reality are generally not his reality. However, because of chemical imbalances in his brain, he is unable to perceive his situation any differently. Therefore, just because you didn’t feel the Holy Spirit in your experiences as a Catholic doesn’t mean that He wasn’t there, and vice versa. One must avoid getting caught up into emotional stimuli and attributing that to the Holy Spirit. Dynamic speakers, entertaining music, etc. does not equal worship.

You sincerely seem to want the fullness of Christ in your life, which is why you sought it in the Baptist church you are currently at. While this experience may be whetting your appetite for more, I suggest to you that it is incomplete and if you dig deep into the Catholic faith you were once a part of, learn the beautiful teachings of the Church, study the lives of the saints, and allow your mind to be open to the possibility that the Catholic Church is the FULLNESS of Christ, your faith and love for Christ will be far deeper than anything you’ve ever experienced.

Blessings to you.