Posted on 07/19/2009 2:17:43 PM PDT by NYer
My original post is that all men are sinful. It is NOT out of context, for the entire NT assumes the same. Please show me a quote from Scripture that contradicts it, or indicates Mary was sinless. And please do not bring up the silly argument from Luke 1...it doesn’t hold water.
Since you cannot interpret scripture in any way contrary to what your church teaches, you effectively leave the church alone to do the interpreting. This is a classic sign of a cult.
Purgatory twists scripture into unrecognizable strangeness, as does the idea that Mary lived a sinless life. The idea that Mary was the New Ark of the Covenant is equally bizarre.
And if Peter was the Head of the Church on earth, neither he nor Jesus gave any indication. Indeed, when Jesus was asked who was the greatest of the 12, Jesus indicated the entire idea was wrong. Had it been Peter, it would have been a GREAT time to clarify it. Also, had the other disciples interpreted the statements of Jesus in Matthew 16 to mean Peter was Numero Uno, they wouldn’t have asked who the greatest was.
There are multiple passages warning about false teachers. None of them conclude with, “But hold fast to Peter, the Rock, and his Apostolic Succession!”
I’m not just disagreeing with your interpretation, I’m showing WHY it is out in left field. Feel free to show me wrong, since your church has all the right answers already.
“If you’re walking along a road, don’t see a pit, and nearly fall in but are grabbed at the last second by a friend, were you saved from that pit by your friend?”
But Scripture tells us that ALL fell into the pit, and NO ONE managed to stay out.
And you apparently believe you can interpret Scripture perfectly. This is the classic sign of pride. But where does this name calling get us? I'm afraid I'm going to end this conversation, as it appears to be going nowhere.
Where did you get that idea? It is not true.
See, for instance, The Limits of Scripture Interpretation
“Finally, the Scriptures that we both hold so dear are the ones the Catholic Church’s leaders deemed divinely inspired. The formal Catholic Church selected which writings were to be included in the New Testament and which weren’t divinely inspired.”
No. The Councils in Africa ratified what was already the common acceptance of scripture, and had been for 200-300 years. It was the local congregations that decided which writings were on par with the already existing scriptures, which were important in preventing false doctrine from the day of Jesus’s resurrection.
Even JESUS, raised from the dead, used scripture to instruct:
“24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself...”Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”” - Luke 24
And Paul used it to evangelize the Jews:
“11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed...” - Acts 17
I should have said the Church the Pope infallibly leads...
No, I believe the Holy Spirit will guide us as we search for the truth.
Taken at face value, Jesus had brothers and sisters from Mary; see Matthew 13:53-56. Jesus is in his hometown, and his townsfolk - the people he grew up with - questioned his teachings, saying he was the son of Mary, with brothers and sisters. In fact, his sisters were still with the townsfolk!
Now, if you want to assume that the Gospels meant cousins rather than actual brothers, you have to figure out why the word brother was actually used, especially in relation to Jesus' relation to Mary! Calling Jesus the son of Mary and that Mary and his brothers and sisters were together would seem to indicate a true brother/sister relationship, not cousins. All four Gospels (and Acts) agree, and all of them are quite explicit.
However there is no Biblical foundation for Mary never having another child that I know of; can you provide any supporting scripture that would indicate Mary didn't have more children? Not the Catechism, but actual scripture?
Seems this is a clear position where the Protestant and Orthodox churches are united in a clear position held since the founding of the Christianity and thus representing the true and accurate position of Christianity (especially since this position became Catholic dogma in the mid 1800s).
Once again, your understanding of how Catholics receive the Truth from the scripture is incorrect.
Oh, I agree! Thus how does Mary being full a grace translate to Mary being sinless? I am curious of the Biblical foundation for the equating of being grace-filled meaning sinless.
Enlighten me.
Christ used the Old Testament scriptures to instruct them on all the prophesies concerning the Messiah. Paul, likewise, is referring to the Old Testament and using it to help people realize Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament scriptures regarding the Messiah. The Catholic Church selected and protected the New Testament scriptures. Local congregations did not decide what was to be included in the New Testament. The successors of Peter and the hierarchy of the Church decided that.
No one is denying that Christ used Old Testament scripture to help people recognize Him, but He relied much more on oral teaching. Anything relating to Him and how He wanted us to live in the future was taught using oral instruction, and doing miraculous acts... also known as outward signs. Our sacraments are outward signs, instituted by Christ, to give grace.
Christ loved Scripture and revered it. But He explained what it meant in a new way... He said many things to the people and the Apostles that weren’t in Old Testament scripture (for example that He wanted His followers to “gnaw” on His flesh to have life within them) and He set up the tradition of oral teaching.
Catholics believe that Mary was sinless because she housed the God-Christ child in her womb?
My common sense tells me that God,the father, would not choose Mary unless she was deemed sinless. Remember, The Holy Spirit?
Conceived through the Holy Spirit......thus we have all three persons of the Trinity in this story. God the Father willing it so, God the Holy Spirit through which God the Son, was made human, an extreme act of humility on the part of Jesus Christ, to become Man, but acutally insignificant when we look to the extreme humility of Christ the Son of God dying on the Cross for our sins.
Again a simple answer -- right there in Holy Scripture!
"Grace" (in Christian belief) the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.
Yes, it is a simple answer, but it is not the one you promote.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the words, ‘not one you promote.’
Are you talking about the opinion of the Catholic Church, aren’t you?
The protestant movement is said to have started in the sixteenth century, but we know that Luther and others that broke away from the Catholic Church did so because they believed the Roman Catholic Church had strayed from the truth of the Gospel.
Yes, although that runs counter to the Council of Trent's findings that Adam's sin tainted all of his descendants, which would, of course, include Mary. And of course, include all of us, too!
Thus we have a paradox: Mary is tainted by sin - per the Council of Trent and the infallible nature of the Church's teachings arising thereof - but we also have Mary being claimed to be sinless by Papal ex cathedra declaration some 300 years thereafter.
My common sense tells me that God,the father, would not choose Mary unless she was deemed sinless.
So it is not based on scripture, but only on what you believe to be a logical reason. Fair enough, at least we are in agreement there is no scriptural basis for Mary being sinless.
Remember, The Holy Spirit?
Yes, and he resides in all Christians, even though we are sinful. Somehow we do not need to be sinless to receive the grace of God and be filled with the Holy Spirit.
An even better article is Studying Scripture renews the Church, Denver bishop teaches .
Not all angels are in heaven all the time as our Heavenly Father uses them as messengers, avengers, in our presence unaware (we are unaware they are angels), protectors, etc. There are many Scriptural passages both in the OT and NT that speak to the different roles angels have played in the history of man and even before man existed.
That angels have sinned (1/3) and rebelled against God and others (2/3) have remained faithful to God is not proof angels are sinless. Only that they have more power than man does to not sin.
"In matters of faith and morals, affecting the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of holy Scripture which holy mother the Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures. Therefore no one is allowed to interpret the same sacred Scripture contrary to this sense or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers" (De Filius 2).
Essentially, you can interpret Scripture only as the Catholic Church decrees, based upon tradition and previous teachings. Per Vatican I, there is but one interpretation, and that is the one of the Catholic Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.