Was Mary Sinless?

The Aristophrenium ^ | 12/05/2010 | " Fisher"

[metmom]

No dear heart, salvation is by grace alone. Did you mean justification? Yes Catholics believe we are justified both by faith and by works of love (charity.) Both of which are given impetus by God’s grace. It is the way our will responds to the grace of God. We could not have faith or charity if we did not first receive His sanctifying grace. We do not have these because of our merits but because of His merits. But it has never been taught by the Church that good works save us. Justify us, yes. Save us no.

We are not justified by works either.

Galatians 3:1-14 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 12But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

[Quix]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[lastchance]

I agree. I await in joyful hope for the coming of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Only then will we see justice and peace restored. Till then I’ll err on the side of caution.

[Quix]

I agree.

Many thousands of people have been introduced to Christ in lasting relationship with him;

have been healed;

have had their marriages saved and healed;

have stopped abusing their children and spouses;

have crawled out of depression; been delivered of depression;

have deepened their spiritual disciplines and deepened their walks with Jesus as Lord;

have become more caring and giving toward those around them.

have overcome serious childhood abuse problems and attachment disorder problems

have become more filled with Holy Spirit and sensitive to His leading in their lives . . .

because of Holy Spirit’s work through Joyce Meyers.

Folks can throw rocks at her if they wish. I wouldn’t recommend it. Regardless of her humanness, God clearly has a different attitude toward her.

One can be on God’s side about Joyce Meyers or on satan’s side.

Rick Joyner asserts in THE HARVEST that there are two ‘ministries’ before the Throne of God.

Satan’s accusations

particularly unwarranted, unfitting or Jesus Blood covered incidents . . . sins . . .

and

Christians’ intercessions.

One of those is not a good side to be on.

[Quix]

God is in behalf of prosperity.

HE says HE will not withhold any good thing from those who walk uprightly . . . etc.

HE says HE would that we prosper and be in health EVEN AS OUR SOUL PROSPERS.

Most folks don’t meet the conditions.

And, God has other priorities in some lives involving training and purifying at different stages.

Making assumptions is hazardous.

I think Joyce has a fitting attitude and teaching regarding the “prosperity Scriptures.” I have not observed her going off the deep end with them.

[lastchance]

You might want to crack a biography of St. Francis before you presume he was a navel gazer. Do you believe that God’s love is active in the lives of Christians? Do you think feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, tending the sick, caring for the widow and the orphan are ways in which we manifest this love in the World? Does such love show the Truth of the Gospel that Christ came to save? That He was sent because of the Father’s love? That He died for us because He first loved us? What do words from Scripture matter if they do not give life to us?

[Judith Anne]

Waste of time.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

God’s grace and faith in Christ, which is believing that He is Who He says He is, and that He has done what He said He has done, fulfills the Law, thank you, have a good day as well.

Ah ok. I guess I should nevermind what he says about in Matthew 5 and listen to you sermonize instead. I'll pass. Thanx.

[lastchance]

St. Francis did more than navel gaze. "From this chapter Francis sent some of his friars on missions to the infidels in Tunisia, Morocco, and Spain, while he himself undertook one to the Saracens of Egypt and Syria, embarking with eleven friars from Ancona in June, 1219. At the city of Damietta on the Nila Delta, which the crusaders were besieging, Francis was deeply shocked at the profligacy, the cynicism, and the lack of discipline of the soldiers of the cross. When in August the leaders prepared to attack, he predicted failure and tried to dissuade them from the attempt. The Christians were driven back with the slaughter of six thousand men, yet they continued the siege, and at last took the city. Meanwhile, a number of the soldiers had pledged themselves to live by Francis' rule. He also paid several visits to the Saracen leader, Melek-el-Kamil, Sultan of Egypt. There is a story to the effect that he first went among the enemy with only Brother Illuminato, calling out, "Sultan! Sultan!" When he was brought before the Sultan and asked his errand, Francis replied boldly, "I am sent by the Most High God, to show you and your people the way of salvation by announcing to you the truths of the Gospel." Discussion followed, and other audiences. The Sultan, somewhat moved, invited Francis to stay with him. "If you and your people," said Francis, "will accept the word of God, I will with joy stay with you. If you yet waver between Christ and Mohammed, order a fire kindled and I will go into it with your priests that you may see which is the true faith." The Sultan replied that he did not think any of his would dare to enter the fire, and he would not accept Francis' condition for fear of upsetting the people. He offered him many presents, which Francis refused. Fearing finally that some of his Moslems might desert to the Christians, he sent Francis, under guard, back to the camp." I have not included his work amongst the lepers and other poorest of the poor. I am not sure if you regard such things as Christian acts.

[lastchance]

We are speaking of how Catholics and Orthodox define the term. Not how Protestant’s define it. Your worship does not involve sacrifice and you don’t venerate Saints or the Virgin Mary as did the ancient Church. I can not help that your new mode of worship does not fit the old definitions. I presume you give God your all and that you do worship Him. You just have no need for any distinctions. We do.

[lastchance]

We are never gonna agree on this point. Mostly because you believe in forensic justification and imputed rightousness. I believe in infused rightousness and that justification is more than a forensic legal accomplishment.

If you are so inclined you might want to look up the term Theosis. Most of what you come across will be by Easten Orthodox writers. But the belief is also valid for Catholics.

[cva66snipe]

It could only work if each and every member of the group were a true believer in Jesus Christ.

They were just that and it didn't work actually. Some dissension set in and a bit later came both religious and government persecution. The Disciples tried it. Acts ch 3-5 I think.

The rest is just a general response not at you or anyone personally. People of leadership positions can make very outrageous statements. Here's a real whopper which should have any Christian raising questions and saying this is an outrage. I do not believe in nor follow the creed of the words I am quoting.

I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of d blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.

His religious beliefs were primarily that of a Deist. A person who in effect believes GOD created heavens and earth then abandoned it. Yet his political writings were the words which were written, signed by colony delegates, and handed to the crown, in 1776. Would any Freeper call Thomas Jefferson an enemy of this nation or a religious hieratic for that matter? A person doing so might get banned or at the least get highly flamed for such. Many have quoted him. Few realize that this book he speaks of is the bible of the Unitarian Church. A true corruption of GOD's Word removing the Divinity of Jesus Christ as well as His resurrection. Jefferson is being treated far more kindly by Protestants than a Pope who denies none of The Gospel.

Now I suppose some could make the argument Jefferson was not the leader of a church but a political leader. True enough. But he did pen a document calling it religious text.

Many times church leaders do not make good political leaders and vice versa because the missions and laws of each institution are vastly different in nature. Thomas Jefferson was a great POTUS but would any of you want his as a leader of your church meaning your Priest, Preacher, Sunday School Teacher, or Deacon? Likely not because his theological beliefs are 180 from yours Protestant or Catholic. That is how radical the religious views in this nation changed in 200 years.

Many churches possibly in our lifetime will fall for the deception of the Antichrist as in a charismatic leader a disciple of Satan to come and for a short time rule the world. This person will deceive many in ALL churches including many leaders as well as members maybe even me or you if we aren't careful.

Despite what he is reported to have said he is not of the Antichrist any more than Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell could have been both BTW were DEMs IIRC. Yes they too had their public boo boos.

When you see a Pope call for the abominations {such as openly Gay clergy and church sanctioned same sex marriages etc} now being seen in many Protestant Churches to be allowed and the falling away then get back with me. When you see the Pope calling for removal of prayer from all public functions get back with me. When you see the Pope supporting abortion on demand get back with me. I only wish more protestant church leaders would gather courage and speak their voices in opposition to the wrong doings of government.

[boatbums]

I disagree with Cronos that OPC is a cult, even if some of its members act in a disgraceful fashion. They are simply an orthodox (as defined in the Reformed faith)Calvinist denomination. I think they came about in response to the heresies arising in the USPC such as increasing acceptance of same sex relationships and other abandonments of Christian moral teachings.

If that is truly what the OPC is, then I agree with you that they are certainly NOT a cult. In fact, I admire any denomination that, in its desire to remain true to God's word, breaks away from the dominant hierarchy who refuses to. I also see how behavior that is "disgraceful" belongs wholly to the individual posting and I do not judge the faith of entire groups by the actions of that individual.

That is kind of how I view what really happened during the Reformation. If the Catholic Church had not excommunicated the Reformers, who had legitimate grievances, and had gone back to the true orthodox faith found in the Bible I doubt that I, nor most former Catholics, would have had any reason to leave.

[boatbums]

LOL...your tagline suits you. ;o)

[cva66snipe]

Joyce is a part of the “Faith” movement, with which I mostly agree.

I've listened to her enough to understand it's taken her many years to finally find an inner peace which even though she preached it eluded her. Her story is a very interesting one. She's come a long ways spiritually. The person she is hardest on is herself.

[Quix]

[Quix]

I agree.

[shurwouldluv_a_smallergov]

And you show your commitment to... your own infallibility?
You can produce links to sites that “refute” what I've said, I can produce links to sites that “refute” your links.
Again, it all depends on who you believe, or as you put it, who your “commitment” is to.

I believe the Church has a guarantee by the Holy Spirit that it cannot teach error regarding faith and morals. You believe in... your own infallibility?

I posted the canons from 382, 419, and 1542 and they all included the deuterocanonical books. Here are a few more quotes that disagree with your experts:

“The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.... The New Testament canon is the same as ours. This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I and Gelasius I a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books. This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session.”
(Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, Ch 9)

“A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the ‘Gelasian Decree’ because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent.”
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p.232

And again, from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent.”

You made the "negative contention" for Rome- history speaks for Rome. For the umpteenth time, the only thing I misspoke about was incorrectly stating that Luther was the first to challenge it- I should have phrased it that Luther's challenge was serious enough that the Church infallibly defined it's canon.

I have not resorted to calling you any names and I resent the implication. You have your interpretation of scripture and history, and I have mine, as does everyone else.

[fabian]

You guys seem to have no answer for me...not even..wow, I think you may be correct! Just silence....

[daniel1212]

“I believe the Church has a guarantee by the Holy Spirit that it cannot teach error regarding faith and morals. You believe in... your own infallibility?”

That is another typically unwarranted Catholic claim, as unlike Rome claiming she is infallible whenever she speaks according to her infallibly declared formula, I have provided evidence from Catholic as well as scholarly sources which refutes your primary contentions with me, as well as your remaining argument.

You have acknowledged Luther was not the first to challenge the list which Trent ratified, and that there was disagreement among Catholicism until Trent settled it, and thus there was not infallible definition prior to Trent.

Yet despite my showing you recent research that shows that the Tridentine canon was not exactly the same as Carthage (and the former ratified that of Florence), and that the Gelasian decree (Decretum Gelasianum) which the gives 382 date and list authority, is not historically authoritative, you still post old scholarship which is ignorant of these problems (if it was not, such encyclopedic sources could hardly have failed to mention them). As regards the latter,

In 1794 F. Arevalo, the editor of Sedulius, started the theory that the first three of these five chapters were really the decrees of a Roman Council held a century earlier than Gelasius, under Damasus, in 382 A.D...

It had been Professor v. Dobschütz’s intention to publish the Damasine and Gelasian forms side by side (i. e. I, II, III and III, IV, V, c. III being common to both), but in the course of his investigation he came to very different conclusions. According to v. Dobschütz all five chapters belong to the same original work, which is no genuine decree or letter either of Damasus or Gelasius, but a pseudonymous literary production of the first half of the sixth century (between 519 and 553).

There can, I think, be little doubt that v. Dobschütz has made out his case. The really decisive point is that in I 3, in the part most directly associated with Damasus, there is a quotation of some length from Augustine in Joh. ix 7 (Migne, xxxv 146l).1 As Augustine was writing about 416, it is evident that the Title Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei is of no historical value.

The proof that the document is not a real Decretal of Gelasius or any other Pope is almost as decisive, if not quite so startling... - http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

As for being identical, Hippo and Carthage include a book as canonical that Trent did not. THE RC response is that Trent passed later passed over in silence (due to naming conventions the issue can be confusing). http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2505