Replies

You wrote:

“Since we differ on assumptions, we differ on conclusions. Unless one of us wishes to change assumptions, there will be no agreement on conclusions.”

You have assumptions. I have authoritative teachings from the Church.

“Protestants largely agree on doctrine. I’m a Baptist, but I’ve had no difficulty having Lutheran or Methodist pastors.”

Sure you do. Ask that Lutheran about Baptism. Ask him what the Eucharist really is.

“Obviously, all denominations have some who ignore scripture...but no more so than Catholics do (see Notre Dame & Obama, for example).”

The difference is this: We have individual Catholics who ignore scripture, but Protestant denominations ignore scripture. All Protestants are sectarians. They are not in Churches. They are in sects started by men.

“Those Protestant denominations that honor scripture have no major doctrinal differences, and those that do not honor scripture have no justification for calling themselves Protestants.”

Wrong. Again, get your Baptist and Lutheran pastors in the same room and bring up Baptism. Better yet, make it infant Baptism. See what happens.

“If the traditions of Catholicism don’t contradict scripture, then they do not bother me. However, I see no reason to twist the plain meaning of words to make scripture agree with your traditions.”

I’m not twisting anything. See how you have to twist things to satisfy your own beliefs? You MUST conclude that I am twisting things because I actually present the traditional, historical, 2,000 year old Christian belief and it doesn’t square with your less than 500 year old set of novelties.

Take Mary’s sinlessness. Do you think only Catholics believe in that? Here’s what Martin Luther wrote about it nearly 500 years ago:

“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin.” (Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works, trans. and ed. J. Pelikan. Concordia: St. Louis, Volume 4, 694)

Now, do you agree with that? If not, then how can you have no problems with a Lutheran pastor? If your Lutheran pastor doesn’t agree with Luther then why does he call himself a Lutheran?

“Different assumptions, different conclusions. Not unlike one of my biology professors years ago, who told me he believed in evolution because the alternative - belief in God - was unacceptable to him.”

Your analogy is completely off base. This is not a choice between a Christian belief and a secular belief.

“That makes sense - IF you assume the Roman Catholic Church IS the one true Church.”

Wrong again. Let’s use even your logic. You have no problems with Baptist, Methodist or Lutheran pastors even though they all disagree on major doctrines such as Baptism and the Eucharist. Which one of them represents the true church then? Clearly they can’t all represent it because they all believe and teach differently. Logically, no matter what you personally believe, at least two out of the three men MUST represent false sects and not the true church. Also, you MUST concede, that it is possible all three could be wrong (which is actually the case). Yet, I freely admit that the Holy Spirit can act through even bad men who are members of false sects. In other words, your premise is wrong, your understanding of the Holy Spirit is wrong, and your understanding of the Catholic Church is wrong as well. By the way, I am not Roman Catholic. I am just Catholic.

“If you do not assume that, then the widespread apostasy seen in the Episcopal Church is evidence of the contrary - that as we can sin, so can we sin in church. That is what is nice about scripture - it doesn’t change.”

Neither do the teachings of the Church. The Episcopal Church is no Church at all - just another Protestant sect.

“I am mildly aware of the teaching of your church on Mary’s salvation. I say mildly, because while I have read what your church has posted on internet sites, I have only done so recently in response to posts here at FR. Frankly, it appalled me.”

I think you should be more appalled at your own insistance in attacking what you didn’t understand.

“Even if you assume Mary was born free from original sin, you still have to believe either she A) live in compliance with God’s will in everything - including the Law, as a Jew, or B) her sinlessness is based on her justification by the saving grace of God - in which case, it doesn’t differ from us.”

I have no difficulty in believing Mary was obedient to God. We know she obeyed God’s laws as they pertained to her life and that other Jews did the same to the best of their ability. Also, she was saved by Christ and His grace as anyone who is saved is, although it was a singular grace for her because it came at the beginning of her life.

“...because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” ‘has made’ - past tense - perfect forever. Justification.”

And?

“If A, then her sinlessness depended on herself, and contradicts scripture. If B, then she differs not from us.”

What? No one is saved by the law. No one. EVERYONE and ANYONE who is saved is saved by Christ. There are no exceptions.

“It doesn’t PROVE it wrong. It DOES make one suspect it either isn’t true, or simply isn’t important.”

Wrong on both counts. The Church has always taught Mary’s sinlessness. To teach otherwise would be to teach something wrong.

“Apparently, you largely agree with me. The point is that the woman should focus on God and His will, not Mary as Blessed.”

Largely? You were taking a verse and using it to attack the Catholic beliefs about Mary when the verse had nothing to do with them. You wrote: “And when a woman tried to pay attention to Mary, Jesus himself redirected her (“Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”).” The woman was not concerning herself with Mary whom she clearly didn’t even know and who clearly wasn’t on the scene!

“An example of why I won’t continue this discussion with you further. We use tradition, but do not elevate it above scripture in determining what is right or important.”

That’s just not true. Sola scriptura. Period.

“However, I find your tone bitter and angry, and one cannot have a logical discussion with someone who is filled with anger.”

I’m not even remotely angry. Stop projecting.