DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,

I could confuse "Liberal Catholics" as being what Catholicism represents on a whole. But that would be as foolish as what you are doing, clumping Episcopalians with all of Protestanism. Bottom line is the following, you can say an acorn is a walnut, but that doesn't make it so. You can say that the Scriptures aren't authoritative over the church, and that doesn't make it so. You can say that you don't worship saints, but that doesn't make it so. A denomination can claim they interpret Scriptures correctly, but that also doesn't make it so. Jay, the truth IS WHAT IT IS. I can't speak for other protestants or other churches. But at my church, I know that our Bishop and Pastors already lifted up our Episcopalian brothers in prayer.(we also lifted up our Catholic brothers and sisters as well) We prayed that they find the truth and nothing more but the truth. Now you can disagree as to what the truth is as I know you will. But it IS WHAT IT IS. One day, we will find out the truth. All things being as it is, one of us will be wrong. But I pray that you find the truth in God. I also pray that I learn more about God's truth. But like I said, one day, we will know.

God Bless

Jeff,
Just curious: how many of the things I've listed has your personal church already compromised on?

And remember, Christ started a church and promised that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The Bible calls it the "pillar and foundation of truth" and says that through the church "the wisdom of God will be made known." Was your church started in 33 A.D.?

I tend to lump protestants together because the suffer the same problem: relativism. When one protestant church okays contraception, for example, the others all fall in line within about 30 years. Now you're praying for the Episcopalians, how long until you're telling me they are correct?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

We don't worship Mary at our church, because as you know it is no wherer found in the Bible. If contraception results in the death of a potential seed, it is wrong. Using a condom versus the rhythm method(as Catholics do), involve the same intent which is not to have children at a certain time. Just like the rhythm method does not work 100% of the time, neither do condoms. Infant baptism as a neccessity is not Biblical...but we neither condemn nor promote it. We do condemn homosexuality...clearly. But we still love the sinner at our church and a homosexual will not be turned away from our Church. As far as idol worship...we don't worship anyone other than the Lord. Now Jay, how do you know that the Episcopalians are in error? What makes you sure?

"Now you're praying for the Episcopalians, how long until you're telling me they are correct?"

The answer is until God proclaims them to be correct. And since God's words are unchanging, the answer is never;)

God Bless

Jeff,
"Worship Mary" - why would stoop so low as to mischaracterize my words (note that you made that up, I never said that) and to foster a lie about Catholics? Obviously, your church has changed the view on Mary, despite the fact that in the Bible it says, "all men shall call me blessed." In other words, you ignore that part of Scripture.

Contraception is condemned in the Bible - it's so obvious that every Christian church condemned contraception until the Anglicans suddenly decided it was okay in the 1930's. God doesn't change, right? So you would argue that contraception was always okay and every Christian until 1930 was wrong? Note that you'll have to include the early Christians, which condemned contraception even more plainly than the Bible does.

You ask, "How do you know the Episcopalians are in error," which is interesting. First, the point of this article is that no other protestant church can condemn them, since all argue that sola scriptura is valid. What makes me so sure? Is this a joke? I doubt if even you could create an excuse to get around the Scriptures that condemn exactly, in detail the kind of Idol worship they are pushing.

By the way, I know I'm correct because my Church condemns it. And my Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" and through it "the manifold wisdom of God is made known." What does Scripture say about your church?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
Leave the Anglican Church alone! They are our friends in Christ. I have spent most of my life angry at protestants, particularly Ian Paisley's stripe of presybetrianism, and it has brought me no nearer to Christ. I do not like fundamentalists because of their focus solely on the Word (and interpretation thereof), and inattention to the Eucharist. That said, we must all be strong in Christ! The Anglican Church is having problems, as is ours, we should pray for their success and ask them. as children of Christ for their prayers.
Patrick

Jay,

You said, "Worship Mary" - why would stoop so low as to mischaracterize my words (note that you made that up, I never said that) and to foster a lie about Catholics? Obviously, your church has changed the view on Mary, despite the fact that in the Bible it says, "all men shall call me blessed." In other words, you ignore that part of Scripture.

It is one thing to honor a person, which I think all Protestant Churches adequately do for Mary. It is quite another to create a series of doctrinal teachings on her that smack of deifying her. They have stated that she was a perpetual virgin, even though it is clear in scriptures she was not. They have stated that she was immaculately conceived, even though they have absolutely no evidence of that fact. They have stated that she was assumed into heaven. They have stated that it was her that held the early church together. Even though it is clear from the writings of the apostles, that she was a very minor figure in their story. In fact in all his writings to the early churches, I don't think Paul or for that matter any other apostle ever even once mentions her. Catholics call her the “Mother of God”. They pray to her. In fact they pray to her more than they do to Christ himself. They have declared that she is another mediatrix between God and man, which is, by the way, directly contrary to Scripture. I believe that Satan will do anything to get you to take your eye off Christ. In many places in the Catholic world she is blatantly worshiped, and the Church leadership turns a blind eye to it. Once again the official teaching of the Church doesn’t mean a whole lot when the practical everyday actions run completely contrary. With all this said, if it looks like worship, acts like worship, feels like worship, it probably is.

You said “Contraception is condemned in the Bible - it's so obvious that every Christian church condemned contraception until the Anglicans suddenly decided it was okay in the 1930's. God doesn't change, right? So you would argue that contraception was always okay and every Christian until 1930 was wrong? Note that you'll have to include the early Christians, which condemned contraception even more plainly than the Bible does.”

I am tired of this weak argument being touted as proof positive that the Catholic church and no other is the one true church. I would like to make three points.

1. Contraception is not condemned in the Bible. The only thing that you have to hang your doctrine on is the story of Onan, which represents two or three verses in the Old Testament. These verses could be taklen to mean any number of things. Hardly an obvious teaching. In it interesting that sexual sins are condemned throughout scripture, and yet the writers never once mention the sin of contraception, even though it was commonly practiced back then.

2. Why for 1900 years did most Christians believe that contraception was wrong? Was it because God “obviously” condemned it in Scripture? No. I think that it was because for the first 1500 years or so it was a Catholic doctrine. During this period, to go against Catholic doctrine was to be banned a heretic and excommunicated. I don't think that it was even thought about much during this time period. It just took another 400 years for the Protestant churches to actually look at Scripture and say, “You know what we are holding on to a Catholic teaching that once again is not even addressed in Scripture.” And yes Jay for 1900 years we were wrong about the subject. God does not change, but man's understanding of Him does.

3. Catholics practice contraception, they just call it Natural Family Planning to appease their Tradition. At least Protestant churches are honest about the subject.

You said, “You ask, "How do you know the Episcopalians are in error," which is interesting. First, the point of this article is that no other protestant church can condemn them, since all argue that sola scriptura is valid. What makes me so sure? Is this a joke? I doubt if even you could create an excuse to get around the Scriptures that condemn exactly, in detail the kind of Idol worship they are pushing.”

I find it sad that many have seen the Episcopal Church’s downfall as a reason to flee to the Catholic Church. To me this does nothing more than to reinforce my belief that there is no infallible person and no infallible church. This is what happens when a church falls away from God's word. Flee the Episcopal Church as it looks like it no longer is a valid Christian Church, but please do not put your faith in another fallen institution. You will once again be disappointed. Even in all of this, God is good. Put your faith in Christ where it belongs.

You said, “By the way, I know I'm correct because my Church condemns it. And my Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" and through it "the manifold wisdom of God is made known." What does Scripture say about your church?”

The same.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,

You speak with a forked-tongue my friend. First you say that you never said Catholics worship Mary then you have the audacity to say that the Church has created a "series of doctrinal teachings on her that smack of deifying her." So which is it? Do we or don't we worship Mary? I personally believe that you are being intellectually dishonest on this and many other doctrines discussed on this site. You continually ignore verses like Luke 1:28 where the angel Gabriel declares Mary to be "full of grace" BEFORE the coming of Christ, thus the Catholic teaching of Mary's immaculate conception, for it would have been a lie for Gabriel to declare this if sin was on her soul. You ignore the fact that the words "brethren" or "brothers" of the Lord do not specifically signify that they are His actual brothers. Not to mention that the Early Church Fathers taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin. The Apostles didn't need to teach it or define it for Mary was still living while they were spreading the Gospel and organizing the Church and because everyone would have known it. So keep picking and choosing at will, but stop making these false and erroneous claims which have no foundation. And as far as deifying goes and your comment about Mary being "blatantly worshipped" in certain parts of the world please explain and provide examples.

In terms of contraception, you once again reveal your "willed ignorance." It wasn't because the Catholic Church taught that it was wrong that ALL PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS taught it was wrong for 400 years! Luther defied the teachings of Catholic Church yet even he openly condemned contraception as did all Protestant leaders until the early part of the 20th century. The truth is obvious, Protestant denominations gave into the State's decision that contraception was acceptable. Study history and you will see this. Also there are fundamental differences between using artificial contraception and practicing NFP. NFP remains open to the possibility of a life being created and does not attempt to use sex in a one dimensional way, whereas people who use artificial contraception want to be able to have sex whenever they want without practicing any restraint or being open to the possibility of creating a child. It really isn't that hard of a teaching to understand. Contraception directly interfers with the "natural use" of the body's reproductive organs and eliminates the conjugal act from potentially being both procreative and unifying. NFP, on the other hand does respect the proper use of the body and remains open to both the procreative and unitive aspects of the conjugal act.

You really need to think about these things and read about them...the book offer is still open...

In Christ,
Joe

Jay,
"Obviously, your church has changed the view on Mary, despite the fact that in the Bible it says, "all men shall call me blessed."

Basically I will say the same thing as Thomas. Being blessed does not equal deityfing a person. WE beleive that Mary was blessed. SHe carried the Lord in her womb. However, we don't feel that this makes her "Queen of Heaven" or any other thing that you may title her aside from an obedient servant of the Lord. As far as Onan...we already discussed this in depth. The reason that I know that the Episcopalians are in error is simply because Scripture clearly illustrates that homosexuality is detestable in the Lord's eyes. Not because a church said so.
If a church ignores that or tries to twist it to fit their beliefs, fine....go ahead. But it does not change what it is. IT IS WHAT IT IS. Ultimately when God judges us, we will know for certain.

Joe
"You continually ignore verses like Luke 1:28 where the angel Gabriel declares Mary to be "full of grace" BEFORE the coming of Christ, thus the Catholic teaching of Mary's immaculate conception, for it would have been a lie for Gabriel to declare this if sin was on her soul."

So because Mary was declared to be full of grace, that makes her sinless? Whose grace was she full of? Was it God? What is God's grace?
You ever hear that song Amazing Grace? What does God's grace accomplish...according to Scripture Joe?
Lastly what excuse will you use to explain how Stephen was full of grace. Acts 6:8. Was Stephen also sinless? Is this a RCC teaching?

God Bless

Jeff,

I think you missed a BIG PART of my comment above...the angel Gabriel declared her full of grace BEFORE THE COMING OF CHRIST...EVEN BEFORE JESUS WAS IN HER WOMB! Of course it is God's grace...all grace comes from God. The Church teaches that God created Mary without sin.

In terms of grace, here is what the Catholic Church teaches:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism, the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.
1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of the human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.
1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:
"Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself. (2 Cor 5:17-18)
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, pg. 484

By the way...St. Stephen had been baptized, Mary had not been baptized when the angel called her "full of grace." And yes, being called "full of grace" does mean that she had to be sinless for if there was any sin on her soul, even just one sin, she could not be called "full of grace."

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

You said, “You speak with a forked-tongue my friend. First you say that you never said Catholics worship Mary then you have the audacity to say that the Church has created a "series of doctrinal teachings on her that smack of deifying her." So which is it? Do we or don't we worship Mary?”

On the one hand I have never said that the Church officially teaches the worship of Mary. On the other hand it sure doesn’t look like it condemns it either. Like I’ve said before it doesn’t really matter what the “official Church teaching” is on a matter if the Church does nothing to stop it or correct it then they are committing the sin of omission.

You said, “I personally believe that you are being intellectually dishonest on this and many other doctrines discussed on this site.”

I can say the same for your positions.

You said, “You continually ignore verses like Luke 1:28 where the angel Gabriel declares Mary to be "full of grace" BEFORE the coming of Christ, thus the Catholic teaching of Mary's immaculate conception, for it would have been a lie for Gabriel to declare this if sin was on her soul.”

If Mary was sinless then she didn't need God's grace. Grace is a gift from God for people who do not deserve it. You also make a big deal that this was before the coming of Christ. Many people lived and died before the coming of Christ that still received God’s grace. Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David and Daniel to name a few, and none of them you would claim were sinless. Once again you take one verse and stretch it beyond it’s all intentions, and that interpretation flies in the face of the rest of scripture. i.e. ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALLEN SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. I don’t see an exception for Mary here. Maybe the Church does.

You said, “You ignore the fact that the words "brethren" or "brothers" of the Lord do not specifically signify that they are His actual brothers.”

More Scriptural gymnastics.

You said, “Not to mention that the Early Church Fathers taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin.”

And how would they know? Why was it important to them for Mary to be a perpetual virgin? To them this had to be the case to fit their theology, not because there was any evidence of this. This argument doesn’t hold much weight with me.

You said, “The Apostles didn't need to teach it or define it for Mary was still living while they were spreading the Gospel and organizing the Church and because everyone would have known it.”

And yet they write about or at least touch on every other major topic and doctrine of Christianity. Everyone also knew all these subjects. This is weak. You and I both know it.

You said, “So keep picking and choosing at will, but stop making these false and erroneous claims which have no foundation. And as far as deifying goes and your comment about Mary being "blatantly worshipped" in certain parts of the world please explain and provide examples.”

All I know is that when Protestant missionaries go to Latin America they always bring back stories of groups of people completely lost. They have the whole Mary thing down, but know little if anything of Christology.

You said, “In terms of contraception, you once again reveal your "willed ignorance." It wasn't because the Catholic Church taught that it was wrong that ALL PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS taught it was wrong for 400 years! Luther defied the teachings of Catholic Church yet even he openly condemned contraception as did all Protestant leaders until the early part of the 20th century. The truth is obvious, Protestant denominations gave into the State's decision that contraception was acceptable. Study history and you will see this.”

We believe things sometimes because we have always believed them and not for any other reason. When we are challenged on these beliefs, we change them, but usually not until we are challenged.

You said, “Also there are fundamental differences between using artificial contraception and practicing NFP. NFP remains open to the possibility of a life being created and does not attempt to use sex in a one dimensional way, whereas people who use artificial contraception want to be able to have sex whenever they want without practicing any restraint or being open to the possibility of creating a child. It really isn't that hard of a teaching to understand. Contraception directly interfers with the "natural use" of the body's reproductive organs and eliminates the conjugal act from potentially being both procreative and unifying. NFP, on the other hand does respect the proper use of the body and remains open to both the procreative and unitive aspects of the conjugal act.”

You say TOmato. I say ToMATo. However you want to justify it . . . It’s still contraception. CONTRA = against and CONCEPTION = the fertilization of an egg.

You said, “You really need to think about these things and read about them...the book offer is still open...”

I’ll keep my mind open, and will eventually pick up some of the early church writings.

In Christ,

Thomas

Joe,

Once again, Thomas said it eloquently. There were others before Mary who were given God's grace. Full of grace does not mean that one is sinless. Where do you get this notion from?
Once again this is a case of verbal gymanastics as Thomas put it. Grace means favor, mercy, pardon or privileged. According to Merriam Webster Online it means unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification. UNMERITED! That means that it is not deserved. So unless you change the definition of the word...as your RC teachings tend to do( i.e. the word brother), grace is given to those who do not deserve it. No man is without sin....that is what the Bible tells me. Yet we are given God's mercy and grace. Mary indeed was full of God's grace. She had the privilege to carry our savior Jesus Christ. The Lord gave her favor. She was full of God's grace. My church acknowledges this 100%. But to say she was sinless her whole life because of it would mean that you need to change the meaning of the word GRACE. That my friend would be verbal gymnastics;)

God Bless

Jeff and Thomas,

You guys amaze me. Talk about mental gymnastics...

Thomas, it doesn't change the reality about the things I mentioned. You still ignore that fact that it was God that created Mary sinless. It was God who did it, not Mary. Mary's perpetual virginity....the Early Fathers taught it....period, so just deal with it. I love your comment about the "Protestant missionaries" that have been to "Latin America" coming back with all those stories....my family is from Panama and we know people from Guatemala, Mexico, Costa Rica, etc. none of them "worship Mary" so enough with the second hand information from "Protestant missionaries"...my family and other Catholics there worship Christ. Also Thomas when the Early Church Fathers wrote of Mary's perpetual virginity it wasn't done in a defensive fashion, but rather in a very matter of fact way. Just read them...

In terms of contraception, so what is the basis for the belief that artificial contraception is acceptable and good, as the Protestant denominations teach today? Explain that one for me....
Second, in terms of NFP and Artificial Contraception....you know my point is solid...this is just an easy way to dodge yet another valid point. Why don't you try proving that I'm wrong? Just curious....

Jeff - glad you rely so heavily on Thomas...since you want to quote the dictionary let me do likewise:

full - 1. containing as much or as many as is possible or normal 2. a. complete especially in detail, number, or duration; b. lacking restraint, check, or qualification; c. having all distinguishing characteristics: enjoying all authorized rights or privileges; d. not lacking in any essential 3. a. being at the highest or greatest degree; b. being at the height of development....

In terms of Mary's whole life...prove to me biblically that she sinned...

In Christ,
Joe

I have a great love for our Protestant brethren. After all, they evangelized me, encouraged me to live a life dedicated to Christ instead of the one I had been leading, they gave me many wonderful small groups which met to study the Word of God, they gave me so many authentic Christian experiences and teachings that for whatever reason I was unable to encounter in the Catholic Church.

When I was an Evangelical Protestant, I learned that they fiercely denounced "Liberal Christianity" even more so than they denounced Catholicism. In those circles, Catholicism was viewed as a really messed up form of Christianity while "Liberal Christianity" was viewed as non-Christian because they rejected the personal return of Christ, atonement through none other than Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Triune God in Three persons, the bodily death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. Their core statements of faith which active members had to sign were aimed not at excluding Roman Catholics but at excluding Liberal Christians.

Over the years I have sadly come to realize that the Evangelical Protestants that have been so good to me are rapidly sliding down a slippery slope (with the Anglicans and Episcopalians leading the way) towards the Liberal Christianity they so adamantly and rightly reject.

At the Reformation, Protestants shed their dependence on Church Authority, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Intercession of Mary yet they all condemned homosexuality, idol worship, contraception, abortion. Their doctrines on the virgin birth, the trinity, the incarnation, and the resurrection remained unchanged. St Ignatius of Loyala prophetically warned them that their principle of Sola Scriptura would result in the abandonment of the doctrines they held so dear. The Reformers paid him no heed.

After the rise of Liberal Christianity, no one remembered the prophecy of St Ignatius and those that clung to the classical doctrines thought they could do so while embracing Sola Scriptura. While scriptural inerrancy was now under fire in Protestantism, they remained confident that accepting contraception, homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, would never creep in.

When the Anglican's proclaimed that contraception was OK, presbyterians, baptists, methodists, pentecostals and a whole host of Protestant denominations condemned the Anglican proclamation saying that this phenomenon was an Anglican aberration and not a problem of Protestantism. Contraception would not happen to them they boasted.

Within 30 short years, only the Catholic Church continued to teach against the use of contraception. All the Protestants had embraced what they previously condemned. Pope Paul the VI warned that accepting contraception would lead to the acceptance of abortion, homosexuality, and also cause a staggering increase in the divorce rate. His opponents laughed at him saying the Pill would reduce the need for abortion and divorce. As, the Pill became more available in each state, the divorce rate doubled from 25% to 50% in each state IN THE SAME ORDER that the Pill became available.

Then in the 1990's the Anglicans and Episcopalians proved Pope Paul VI a prophet again and ordained practicing homosexuals. The Evangelical Protestants cried foul and vowed never to allow this perversion just as they had done in the 1930's when they denounced contraceptives.

Now it is idol worship and abortion that enter into the Protestant mainstream (or LiberalStream if you wish to call it that). Once again the Evangelical Protestants claim they will never desert the Lord. Must they betray him three times as Peter did before they weep and return to him?

It breaks my heart to see Evangelical Protestants heading inevitably and not very slowly towards practices and teachings they currently condemn and rightly reject with great fervor.

To those Evangelical Protestants who now agree that all Christians should and Evangelicals in particular will avoid abortion, homosexuality, idol worship, and who also agree that all Christians should and Evangelicals in particular will accept the Word of God as authoritative and inerrant, all I ask is this:

If in your lifetime you see your Evangelical Churches accept abortion, homosexuality, idol worship or reject the authority of the Scriptures, please for the Love of Christ remember that you were warned about this and consider returning home to the Roman Catholic Church.

Your return would bless us richly for the Holy Spirit which currently moves you to evangelize, study the Bible, defend the Christian faith, and live out the Great Commission would continue this work and your zeal could very well become the instrument through which God accomplishes the "Evangelization of Catholics" which Evangelical Protestants along with Pope John Paul II himself have striven to accomplish for many years.

Cardinal John Henry Newman, Peter Kreeft, Scott Hahn, Steve Wood, Bob Swenson, and Michael Coren were all zealous Protestants. We in the Roman Catholic Church have been truly blessed by their return to the Roman Catholic Church. Their testimonies have helped many of us appreciate the riches of our faith. Their teaching ministries have helped many of us understand the riches of our faith.

I invite Evangelical Protestants to return to the Roman Catholic Church not so we can gloat about setting you straight, but because of two things. First, it alone throughout history provides the doctrinal stability (among many other things) you both value and believe you possess. But also because the Holy Spirit uses converts to teach us authentic Christian teachings we Catholics have almost entirely forgotten.

I dont know where my faith would be without converts like Peter Kreeft, Cardinal Newman, Steve Wood, and Michael Coren. Almost surely it would be but a pale shadow of what it is today.

Pax Tecum

Joe,

"Need I say more? Who else is call "full of grace" prior to the coming of Christ?

In terms of Mary's whole life...prove to me biblically that she sinned..."

Joe, she was full of grace....given to her by God. Just like Stephen was full of God's grace. This was grace given to them by God. How does it equate to sinlessness??? As for your last point...to prove to you how Mary sinned, biblically...thats real simple.
Rom 3:23-"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

All have sinned...unless all means not including Mary. But that would indicate changing the meaning of the word all.

God Bless

Richard,

You may be correct about Protestantism. If you are correct then I believe that Catholism is better than the alternative. However, as long as there is one good Protestant church which has not abandoned the faith, and as long as the Catholic Church does not view the Cannon as the Cannon, and thus correct many of her erroneous doctrines, I cannot in good conscience come back.

I appreciate the post though and I agree somewhat. I see the many different Protestant denominations that dot our landscape. I see the various different Protestant organizations which all are attempting to reach the same people or deal with the same issue, each vying with the other for limited resources, and I think what a waste. Sometimes I envy the Catholic Church, for their resources are not split up a hundred different ways. If both Catholics and all the different Protestants could only put aside our differences and work together and pool those resources under one church, how great our impact would be in the world. Sadly we as Protestants can't in good faith compromise on the main issues that separate us, and the Catholic Church can't admit that it is wrong on these issues, for this is too tied up in who they are.

It may be that Protestantism will eventually disappear in the splits and compromises that we are now seeing, or we may just see another great revival like we saw in the early 1700's. My hope is the latter, but if it is the former, I hope that my children and/or grandchildren do find their way back to the Catholic church, for it is better than nothing at all. (That is assuming that the Catholic Church doesn't follow the downward slide of Protestantism, which I truly believe will happen. It may happen more slowly, but it will happen.) As for me I have that good Protestant Church, and the Catholic Church still does not recognize the Cannon as such . . .

In Christ,

Thomas

Richard,

The burden is squarely on you to prove that "all" doesn't mean "all" here. I can see a good reason that "all" of necessity excludes Christ. I see no good reason that "all" excludes Mary, other than it is contrary to established Catholic doctrine. Please address the other verses I posted as well.

In Christ,

Thomas

Joe,

You wanted Biblical proof that Mary sinned. Here it is.

“WE ALL like sheep have gone astray, EACH OF US has turned to his own way;” Isaiah 53:6

“The Fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is NO ONE who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are ANY who understand, and who seek God. ALL have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is NO ONE who does good, NOT EVEN ONE.” Psalms 14: 1-3

“This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but MEN loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” John 3:19

“There is NO ONE righteous, NOT EVEN ONE; there is NO ONE who understands, NO ONE who seeks God. ALL have turned away, they have become utterly worthless; there is NO ONE who does good, NOT EVEN ONE.” Romans 3:10-12

“For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3: 23

Emphasis mine. These are the verses that quickly came to mind. I’m sure that I could find more. I think that the burden is on you to show me where Mary is specifically excluded from these verses.

If you attempt to use the fact that the Bible does not tell us of any specifc sin of Mary, I would agree, but I'd like for you to point out a specific sin in the Bible of Joseph (of the old testament) or Daniel, and yet we do not consider them sinless as well.

Grace is given to those of us who need it to be restored into a right relationship with God. If you have never sinned that relationship has never been destroyed, and as such never needs to be restored. Thus the term "full of grace" means that Mary at one time needed God's grace to restore her relationship with God, which in turn means she had sinned to destroy that relationship in the first place. She was given a special measure of grace because even though she was a sinner, she was still choosen to carry the Christ.

In Christ,

Thomas

Richard,

The burden is squarely on you to prove that "all" doesn't mean "all" here. I can see a good reason that "all" of necessity excludes Christ. I see no good reason that "all" excludes Mary, other than it is contrary to established Catholic doctrine. Please address the other verses I posted as well.

In Christ,

Thomas

PS. I posted this again, due to the fact that it showed up before my earlier post. I just now realized what happened. Everyone went off daylight savings time at 12:00 except for me. Hopefully this will be read after Richard's second post.

Jeff, perhaps the word all does not mean what you think it does. I found a good defense of Mary's sinlessness in light of Romans 3. Please read the link before objecting to my following paraphrase of why all does not mean what you think it does.

1. In the dictionary, "all" has two possible meanings: applying to each and every individual or applying in general to a collection.
2. If one believes "All" in Romans 3 applies to everyone, then it applies to Jesus and suggests Jesus sinned. If you believe Jesus to be sinless, then you allow an exception and "all" must understood in the second, weaker sense.
3. We can look at other uses of the word "all" in the Bible to see that it was meant in the second sense. Elizabeth and Zechariah followed "all" the commandments. Now the Protestants are really stuck. If "all" means each and every individual then Elizabeth and Zechariah are sinless.
4. "All" the disciples deserted Jesus yet Peter followed and the "beloved disciple" remained with Mary at the foot of the cross.
5. Paul says in Christ "All" shall be made alive. Yet not everyone attains eternal life.

So which is it? Are you going to stick with the first definition of "all" and start preaching universalism, that Elizabeth and Zechariah were sinless, and that Peter and the beloved disciple were not disciples? Or will you admit that the definition of the word "all" can mean something different than what you have thought for years?

And if you are bold enough to admit that the word "all" in the Bible can mean something different than what you have thought for the years in which you have been reading the Bible, perhaps just perhaps you are bold enough to also admit that the Roman Catholic Church which has been aware of the other defintion of "all" when it was reading the Bible may have a slightly better interpretation of the Bible than you do?

Thomas,

Since the Catholic Church was the first Church, the Church founded by Christ and established by the Apostles, I think all Protestants should seek to be reconciled with Her. I don't understand your comment about all of us putting aside our differences and becoming "one church." This notion is completely unrealistic. There are fundamental theological differences between Protestantism and Catholicism, the biggest of these being the Eucharist.

As we have said before we, as Catholics, worship the Eucharist i.e. we knee down before our Lord in the Eucharist and worship Him. For we believe that in the Eucharist we encounter the living God, Jesus Christ, - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. If we are wrong than we worship bread and shouldn't be called Christians because the worship of anything but God is idolatry. Yet since we are right, and true to 2000 years of Catholic history and teaching, and the Bible for that matter, it naturally means that ALL Protestants are wrong. Either the Eucharist is Jesus or it isn't....

The Biblical proofs are overwhelming, the historical proofs are unquestionable, the tradition is unbroken within the Catholic Church. It is only in Protestantism that the teaching on the Eucharist changed...not justified by Sacred Scripture but rather by the whims of certain men in the Middle Ages. The burden of proof lies squarely on you to show that we are wrong in terms of the Eucharist as it does in terms of the canon of Sacred Scripture. The Church Fathers who compiled the Bible clearly testified to the Catholic canon.

In Christ,
Joe

Richard,

You make some very good points about the word ALL. I think that the problem is that we read our English translations of the Original Hebrew and Greek and we take the translations literally.

What most people do not do is to read scriputre with the knowledge of the original languages..
In every language and in every culture there are words that can not be propperly translated into another language. There are sayings that do not translate well also.

Also the Jews had a certain style of writing. Are the Psalms to be taken literally.? The book of Eccesiastees ? I think we should go back and try to capture what was meaning in the origial texts.. For example I have been reading that the words Everlasting and Eternal do not have the same meaning to the Jews as we in the 20th century understand these words ..

I think that Both sides on this BLOG are quick to use a scripture if it tends to back up their point of view without checking out if the English translation is conveying what the orignal language was trying to convey.

When we read scripture we should take into consideration Who was the writer speaking to? What were their customs ? Does the English translation capture the true meaning of the original text?

Only when we do this can we truly understand the scriptures and what they are trying to say to us.

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Joe,

Just briefly to clarify a point. When I was talking about the canon, my point wasn't to call into question the make up of the Catholic canon as opposed to the Protestant canon. That is a relatively minor point to me. The reason I used the word "canon" is because the word means measuring stick. My point is in other words, once the Catholic Church returns to using the Scriptures as its measuring stick for all its doctrines then I may think about returning.

In Christ,

Thomas

Richard,

Your reasoning on the word all is another example of doing verbal gymnastics. I will be brief. First, when reading Scripture....you must consider the context in which the word was used. However, you can easily look at it this way. The Bible does say that ALL have sinned. If you want to rational whether or not that includes Jesus...go ahead. But the Bible CLEARLY exempts Jesus from sin. I am sure you are aware of the that. If there was Scripture which shows that Mary knew no sin...then I would say that Mary was sinless. But the only person in the Holy Scriptures who KNEW NO SIN...according to the Scriptures themselves...was Jesus Christ. SO your point is moot and there lies the problem, in order to make Scripture fit RCC doctrine, one has to take words out of context and their most common rational meanings.

GOd Bless

Jeff,
You didn't even read that link, did you. Pathetic.

Remember, you can't quote Scripture out of context, which is what you must do to argue that the ALL in Romans 3 refers to every living person. It is a silly mistake. Go back and read the link he pointed to - it should only take a few minutes.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

"Remember, you can't quote Scripture out of context, which is what you must do to argue that the ALL in Romans 3 refers to every living person. It is a silly mistake. "

1 Kg.8:46
"There is no man that sinneth not."
2 Chr.6:36
"There is no man which sinneth not."
Pr.20:9
"Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin."
Ec.7:20
"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."
Rom.3:23
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
1 Jn.1:8
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
1 Jn.1:10
"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

Fine Jay and Richard...please explain away these passages.
When you take all of Scripture into context, you clearly see that all in the all have sinned means ALL have sinned. What can you say about the passages above?
There is not a man that sinneth not. That means no one, zero...on earth that does not sin. Now...I know you may be itching to ask me about children and the mentally handicapped;) Simply put, read about accountability in the Bible. I will leave it at that and if you want to still discuss, we can.
But just a quick review...
All have sinned is backed up by "there is not a man that sinneth not."
Context fellas....the whole Scripture must be taken into context. By the way "all" does not include Jesus, because Jesus is the exempted from this by other Scriptures. Now if this were the case for Mary...I would see your point...but since the above passages exist...Mary is included in the "all" who have sinned and come short of the glory.

God Bless

Jeff, if there are no exceptions to "all have sinned", then there are no exceptions to Zechariah and Elizabeth followed "all the commandments", and Jesus sinned as well. If you say the verse allows no exceptions and other scripture give an exception for Jesus you merely tell me that the Scriptures contradict themselves.

Are you really so against Catholic teaching that you would adopt a self-contradictory interpretation of the Bible rather than consider the Roman Catholic position? Is Protestantism so precious to you that you would relegate the Bible to inconsistency in order to continue to reject Rome?

This brings us back to Jay's original point of Protestantism being on slippery slope towards contraception, biblical liberalism, homosexuality, abortion, and idol worship. They feel safe when the chaos is far off, and when it looms near they stop caring to avoid it. This process is truly painful to watch when I consider how much I owe my Protestant brethren for beginning my relationship with Christ.

Richard,

You made a good point with the word ALL. But the Catholic church IMHO has little scriptural basis to claim that Mary never sinned and that she remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

They add to scripture or read into scripture what simply is not there. All from the one verse of the greeting of the angel Gabriel saying Hail Mary full of Grace they make a doctrine of a sinless Mary. Where in scripture does it say or even imply that the state of grace was perpetual? Where in scripture does it say that Mary was immaculately conceived? Nowhere ! If it were possible for Mary to be conceived of sinful parents and for her to be born sinless. Then why isn't it just as possible for Jesus to be conceived in the womb of Mary who had origianl sin and still be born sinless? Tell me the difference?

If God can make a piece of ground that is under the curse Holy (Moses and the burning Bush), then why can't He make the womb of a sinner Holy? What is the point to exalt or venerate
Mary? Doesn't that take the focus off of Jesus and put it on her. Something I am sure she never would want or approve of ...

The RCC reads into the scriptures something that was not there. The basis of the immaculate conception is based on non scriptural writings.
Just because the early church fathers wrote about it or believed it doesn't neccessarily follow that it was something the apostles believed or taught.? If it was so important and if this doctrine were true then WHY didn't Jesus say something about it? Why didn't the apostles write something about it..?

The doctrine of the immaculate conception was not made official until 1854. If this was such an important teaching why did it take almost 1900 years before it was made official church doctrine?

Why did you and I have to go to the Protestant church to find a relationship with Jesus ? Why didn't the RCC teach us the importance of a Personal relationship with him? Why didn't they encourage us to read the bible? Jay and others would blame our parents, but somewhere the church was remiss in its duty and in clearly teaching the sheep these truths.. They were too busy having us learn the hail Mary and other such less important things instead of teaching us the basics ...

Richard, it's things like this and doctrines that appear to be extra biblical or contrived that keep me from fully embracing the Catholic church..

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Richard,

THe key word is context. In the context of Scripture JESUS CHRIST is the only exception to the rule that all have sinned. So while the Bible says that all have sinned...it also says that Christ has never sinned. As for Elizabeth and Zachariah...both the RCC and Protestant faiths believe that when they were said to follow all the commandments that that implies that they were faithful to Lord. The same thing when you read that someone is righteous. This answer may not satisfy you, but the truth is that the RCC accepts that all are without sin...except for Jesus and Mary. According to others on this board...even the Pope sins. IF Mary was said to have followed ALL of God's commandments...then I would concede and say that you have a point to Mary's sinless nature. But the fact is that there is no reference to Mary being sinless. Like Clem said, you are reading to much into it. That is going beyond what is written.
God Bless

Richard,

THe key word is context. In the context of Scripture JESUS CHRIST is the only exception to the rule that all have sinned. So while the Bible says that all have sinned...it also says that Christ has never sinned. As for Elizabeth and Zachariah...both the RCC and Protestant faiths believe that when they were said to follow all the commandments that that implies that they were faithful to Lord. The same thing when you read that someone is righteous. This answer may not satisfy you, but the truth is that the RCC accepts that all are without sin...except for Jesus and Mary. According to others on this board...even the Pope sins. IF Mary was said to have followed ALL of God's commandments...then I would concede and say that you have a point to Mary's sinless nature. But the fact is that there is no reference to Mary being sinless. Like Clem said, you are reading to much into it. That is going beyond what is written.
God Bless

Thomas,

I hold that the Church's teachings are grounded and tested in and by Sacred Scripture...but let's not get sidetracked.

We, as Catholics, worship the Eucharist so if the Protestant belief that the Eucharist is just a symbol is correct than Catholics are worshipping a piece of bread and are therefore committing idolatry. Thus begging the question: Why would any Protestant call a Catholic a "Christian"?

BUT...since the Catholic Church is correct, all of Protestantism is in error on this fundamental, pivotal doctrine and therefore not living according to what Christ taught in Sacred Scripture.

In Christ,
Joe

Jeff,
You would argue that infants have sinned? What about a severely retarded person? The fact is that Paul was quoting an earlier text and he expected you to understand the quote, which you don't if you argue that your interpretation is correct.

For example, if I say: "O beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain" - you know I am discussing America. But someone living in Russia 100 years from now may misinterpret this as Russia, rather than the US (assuming a fragment is posted somewhere).

So, back to our example, virtually all Biblical scholars agree that Paul is quoting that verse from the Old Testament (I am aware of no one who disagrees, Catholic or protestant). The question is: are you arguing that Paul was taking the verse out of context? The Jews of his day would have skewered him for this. No, Paul knew exactly what he was saying. "All" in Greek can work in the collective sense, just as it can in English.

It's absolutely silly to suggest that every single person individually sins, think back to an infant born who dies an hour later: which sin did that infant commit? Under your interpretation, it must be one, right?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I thought the Catholic church teaches that we all have original sin. So if that is the case then all have sinned, not personally but by virture of what the RCC says is original sin.

That is why the RCC had to come up witht the immaculate conception to explain why Mary didn't have the stain of original sin on her soul..

Now if you believe that we are not born with stain of original sin on our souls as I do, but we are born into a sin cursed world and with a sin nature then we have no sin on our souls until we actually committ a sin..

I know you will disagree. But there is no scripture that states or infers that we are born with a stain on our souls. It does say that we are born under the curse and that we all have a sin nature...

Clem

Jay,

"It's absolutely silly to suggest that every single person individually sins, think back to an infant born who dies an hour later: which sin did that infant commit? Under your interpretation, it must be one, right?"

Infant, children and mentally challenged or anyone ignorant to what God finds right and wrong are not held accountable. Now of course an infant cannot sin, just the same and infant cannot repent and be baptized as Peter instructed. However to make this short and simple. The Bible does say

Ezekiel 28:15, "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you."

"And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad --they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it." (Deuteronomy 1:39)

Now if you believe in original sin...than Scripture clearly shows that God will not hold them accountable for their sin. Otherwise, we were made perfect until iniquity found us. I do not believe that we inherit the guilt of our fathers. We still are born in sin...from a sinful being...but it is not inherited by us. Now, as for an infant, an infant cannot do anything on his/her own. This is the perfection we were created in. Totally at the mercy of God. However a child who steals..while commiting a sin, does not know the difference between good or bad. A mentally handicapped who masturbates, does not know any better. However, these categories of people will not be held accountable. THIS is according to Scripture.
The bottom line is that Bible explains that if we sin with out truly knowing what is right and what is wrong...that we will not be held accountable. That includes infants, children, and mentally handicapped. So, Jay, the Bible does address the aforementioned in regards to sin. According to your beliefs however, we are all born with original sin. So according to the RCC, all have sinned. IF, and that a BIG IF, this were the case...God does not hold infants, and children accountable.
I do not believe in original sin. As I explained above somewhere, the Bible explains that we were made perfect until iniquity finds us. Until we are accountable.
The Scriptures explains how we were made perfect that means with out sin. The Scriptures exempt Jesus Christ from sinning. The Bible shows that once we are accountable or are no longer blind or ignorant to the truth, that we then are held accountable for sin. So if you want to argue about original sin or you question whether a baby, child or a mentally challenged person sins or not, it doesn't matter...because they are not held accountable. Logically, one can see that a child is innocent. They are dependent. But once again, we must take everything into proper context. An infant cannot do anything on their own. How can they trangress? They can't. Was this the perfection GOd talks about? In context with everything...it seems that way. Logically, it seems that way. Scriptures discusses the perfection that we were made in. But according to your belief, the infant is with original sin. And even if that were true, the child would not be held accountable. What a merciful God we serve. In context, the all that God refers to are those who are accountable. But by your belief, we are born with sin on us, therefore we sin. So all have sin. The only person therefore, according to Scripture and your belief whom the Bible clearly says knew no sin, is Jesus. So if you believe in original sin, ALL HAVE SINNED except for Jesus. However my church teaches that we are prone to sin, but we not born with a transgression already against us. The Bible teaches us that we were born in perfection. Just as Adam and Eve were. However as we get older we reach a point where we sin. This is the nature that we are prone to. This is in Scripture.

God Bless

Joe,

If I am correct about the eucharist/communion, then you do worship mere bread. Whether you do so out of an honestly mistaken belief that the bread actually becomes Christ, then I think that I will not judge whether you are a Christians or not. For I believe in your heart you are really worshiping Christ, even if it is in a wrong manner.

And I agree that if you are correct then Protestantism is wrong on a important issue. However, I wouldn't characterize it as a pivotal one.

However, I am firmly convinced that I am correct.

Richard,

You may pound away that the word all doesn't mean all, (By the way you are beginning to sound like Clinton.) but you still haven't addressed the other dozen or so verses that are scattered throughout Scripture that Jeff and I have thrown at you. It's pretty overwhelming evidence. There is clear evidence that Christ is excluded, however there is no evidence that Mary was.

In Christ,

Thomas

Joe,

Maybe you will give me your input on this in regards to the Eucharist. Would you agree that sometimes we can not take a scripture literally and have to take them metaphorically sometimes ?

Example, when Jesus says that if your Eye causes you to sin , pluck it out or if your hand causes you to sin you should cut it off He was not speaking literally? There are other examples through out scripture but those are two that come to mind...

If you look at John 6 towards the of the chapter around verse 57 to about 62 . This is a clarification of the meaning of Eating my flesh and drinking my blood. It is meant spiritually and not literally. Jay said and I am paraphrazing that the Eurcharist feeds us spritually, not our bodies.. Our bodies don't need the nourishment but our spirits do...

The bread and wine is meant to feed us spiritually and so why would it need to become the actual body and blood of Christ to feed our spirits...? Jesus even at some point makes the analogy that the mana from heaven fed the Jews in the desert physically but the Eucharist was meant to feed us spiritually...

What are your thoughts on this ? Why does the Eucharist have to be the actual body and blood of Christ ?

Thanks..

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Clem,
To answer your question, I would start by saying "Keep reading." I would suggest you are misinterpreting Christ's meaning in the passage and the rest of the chapter proves that out. If Christ was just speaking symbolically, then why did He allow all of His disciples (except the twelve) leave? They understood Him literally and could not accept the teaching. If Jesus meant this in a metaphysical way, why didn't He clarify and explain?

Also, in the preceding passage Christ is using words that aren't mistaken for symbolism. Each time Christ says "eat" in this passage, He strengthens the phrase. The last time is better translated as "chew" or "gnaw" than eat. In addition at the Last Supper, Christ could have easily said, "This is like my Flesh", but He didn't. Jesus said, "This is my Flesh", which takes you back to the John passage: "My Flesh is food indeed."

Jesus did about everything He could to underline the fact this was a literal teaching. I believe Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 puts a big exclamation point behind it. If Communion is merely symbolic, then why would you die for eating it unworthily?

If you get a chance, read this post on the Eucharist. It starts in the Old Testament showing how God has always intended this to be the central part of our faith.

As the passage in John shows, this is hard teaching that many cannot accept. But those who do are more blessed for it.

God bless,
Jay

Thomas,

Yet biblically, in reference to the Eucharist, you don't have a leg to stand on, neither did Luther. The Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is grounded in Sacred Scripture and supported by the Early Church Fathers as well. The Protestant doctrine on the Eucharist lacks any substance. And I think you know this...

In Christ,
Joe

Jay,

I re-read the your article on the Eucharist and you make some assumptions in it. Calling the apostles priests and the breaking of bread on the road to Emmas the first Mass, and the grouping of the people in the feeding of the 5000 some sort of model for the church..

You always bring up the scripture stating that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.. What is your definition of the church? Is it an Institution or is it the body of believers and followers of Christ? Is it the Roman Catholic Church..?

Canibalism was agains the law. Why would Jesus contradict the law and institute canibalism?

You say in the article that the Eucharist is not a resacrifice of Christ. The church catecism says it is an unbloody sacrifice. Is it a sacrifice or isn't it ? Or is it a reinactment or a representation of what Jesus did on the cross ?

Jesus also said if your eye causes you to sin that you should rip it out. Did He mean that literally or figuratively? If the Eucharist is meant to purify our souls and our spirits, it is only logical that we should not receive it in an unworthy manner..

Jay, you make statements and write articles regarding various interpretations of scriptures and because the Catholic church teaches it you assume that their interpretation is always correct.

Remember the Jews were chosen by God. They were and still are God's Chosen people. He gave them the Ten commandments and the prophets. They were the set apart, the chosen ones. Yet except for a
small percentage, God's chosen missed their Savior..

I admire your devotion to your church.. But shouldn't our focus and our devotion be to God and to Jesus and not to an Institution.. After
all the Jewish religion became and institution
of laws and rituals. Does God want religion or does He seek a relationship with us, His people.?

Paul says in:Philippians 2:12-13
to " work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. You make it sound like the Catholic church is the only way to God... But Jesus said I am the way not a church Institution..

You seem to chastize Non Catholic believers for not following the Catholic Church, yet most of the disillusioned Catholics and Protestants that post hear all seem to be sincere followers of Christ. They don't have a quarrel with Jesus but with the Institution that is called the Roman Catholic Church. Just because the RCC has been around for 2000 years does not mean they are always right on their teachings.

The Jews were around for 2000 years before the church and they have been around longer than the Catholic Church. They have some truth, but
they are still looking for their savior..

Matthew 16:18-19 says upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it... What it does not say, imply or infer is that the Rock or the church would be INFALLIBLE. It says that hell would not prevail against it. I could never understand how the RCC got infallibility out of hades not prevailing against the church ??

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Jay,

I re-read your article on the Eucharist and you make some assumptions in it. Calling the apostles priests and the breaking of bread on the road to Emmas the first Mass, and the grouping of the people in the feeding of the 5000 some sort of model for the church..

You always bring up the scripture stating that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.. What is your definition of the church? Is it an Institution or is it the body of believers and followers of Christ? Is it the Roman Catholic Church..?

Canibalism was agains the law. Why would Jesus contradict the law and institute canibalism?

You say in the article that the Eucharist is not a resacrifice of Christ. The church catecism says it is an unbloody sacrifice. Is it a sacrifice or isn't it ? Or is it a reinactment or a representation of what Jesus did on the cross ?

Jesus also said if your eye causes you to sin that you should rip it out. Did He mean that literally or figuratively? If the Eucharist is meant to purify our souls and our spirits, it is only logical that we should not receive it in an unworthy manner..

Jay, you make statements and write articles regarding various interpretations of scriptures and because the Catholic church teaches it you assume that their interpretation is always correct.

Remember the Jews were chosen by God. They were and still are God's Chosen people. He gave them the Ten commandments and the prophets. They were the set apart, the chosen ones. Yet except for a
small percentage, God's chosen missed their Savior..

I admire your devotion to your church.. But shouldn't our focus and our devotion be to God and to Jesus and not to an Institution.. After
all the Jewish religion became and institution
of laws and rituals. Does God want religion or does He seek a relationship with us, His people.?

Paul says in:Philippians 2:12-13
to " work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. You make it sound like the Catholic church is the only way to God... But Jesus said I am the way not a church Institution..

You seem to chastize Non Catholic believers for not following the Catholic Church, yet most of the disillusioned Catholics and Protestants that post hear all seem to be sincere followers of Christ. They don't have a quarrel with Jesus but with the Institution that is called the Roman Catholic Church. Just because the RCC has been around for 2000 years does not mean they are always right on their teachings.

The Jews were around for 2000 years before the church and they have been around longer than the Catholic Church. They have some truth, but
they are still looking for their savior..

Matthew 16:18-19 says upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it... What it does not say, imply or infer is that the Rock or the church would be INFALLIBLE. It says that hell would not prevail against it. I could never understand how the RCC got infallibility out of hades not prevailing against the church ??

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Hi Thomas;

Just a quick note....

You said "That is assuming that the Catholic Church doesn't follow the downward slide of Protestantism, which I truly believe will happen. It may happen more slowly, but it will happen."

Sorry my friend. It will never happen. The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church and will not allow it to teach an error in faith and morals. Christ said that He will be with us to the end of time, that He would send His Spirit to bring us to the knowledge of all Truth.

Keep searching,
God bless,
Nickie.

Nickie,

I don't place my faith in fallen institutions, I place my faith in God.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,
We place our faith in God as well - we just also trust Him when He builds a Church and says "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."

"Fallen institutions"? Maybe your church, not mine.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

The only reason you can cling to the Catholic Church as not fallen is because you have allowed the Catholic Church to define what is and is not "fallen". . . . And of course it defines itself as not fallen . . .

In Christ,

Thomas

Jay,

Please explain how the gates of hell not prevailing against the church equates to infallibility ? Or that the Holy Spirit Guiding the church equates to Infallibility of the Pope when he teaches or makes chruch doctrine?

God was with and Guided the Jews through out history. Did He ever proclaim Moses, Joshua David or Solomon infallible ? Did He ever give
the say that the teachings of the Rabis were infallible. Yet you and the Catholic church somehow gleamed from those two verses that He has given the Pope infallibility when speaking on church doctrine ..

Grace amd Peace to you,

Clem

Thomas;

I'm wondering about your trust in God....According to Protestantism, God let His Church fall into error fairly shortly after Jesus ascended into heaven. I must admit, I'd have a tough time trusting a God that would allow His Church to fall into apostasy for 1600 years and teach error to all His children whom He died to save. Seems a little contradictory, no?

Nickie.

Nickie

"I'd have a tough time trusting a God that would allow His Church to fall into apostasy for 1600 years and teach error to all His children whom He died to save. Seems a little contradictory, no?"

Actually, God warned us in His word about deceptive and false teachings. Combine this with the apostles saying that if anyone has preached a different gospel from the one we have preached....hmmm....do u see where I am going?
If not, let me clarify....God uses his disciples to preach the word. The word is written down.
God also has written down the warnings of false teachings.
Nickie, God knew that this would happen. Or else he would not have warned against it. Thankfully, we have the Holy Scriptures as the measuring stick and the ultimate authority.

God Bless

Jeff,
Where exactly does Scripture say that it is the "ultimate authority"? I've been asking this question for years and no one can show me. Obviously, if you argue that Scripture is the ultimate authority, it must say so (or else your teaching might be "deceptive and false," right?).

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

First off, why must the Scripture say it is the ultimate authority? This is an impossible standard that you have imposed on it. It is not illogical to suggest that we can come to this conclusion by way of reason and logic. Notice that the word you used was "ultimate" authority and not "sole" authority. If we use the Scripture as the ultimate authority then we can still use other avenues to find truth. (ie reason and logic.)

Secondly, I will repost something I posted earlier.

We all agree that the Apostles preached and wrote the gospel and the doctrines surrounding the gospel correctly. We believe this because of who Jesus is and the authority he gave to his Apostles. We also know that what is included in the Bible is the writings of those Apostles and their close and immediate associates. On the other hand, aside from two or three verses which you quote regarding the truth of the Church, which I could argue could mean any number of things, we do not know that what the Church teaches outside the Bible is necessarily what the Apostles taught. It might be but it also might not. Thus to believe that the Church teaches what the Apostles did is to just take the Church’s word for it. Now this may be a valid way of looking at things, but at least admit that that is exactly what you are doing. To me it is foolish to just accept the doctrines the Church teaches as the Gospel without at least comparing it to what the Apostles wrote to see if it matches up. By doing this comparison you are setting up the Scriptures as the measuring stick of all doctrine. (Which is what the word "Canon" means.)

Now given all of this, here is the verse that you seek.

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” Galatians 1:8-9

Who is the “we” in the quote above? Please tell me. It is certainly not the church of the second century or thereafter. It is the leaders of the first century church, ie the Apostles and their immediate associates. Do you see the difference between Paul’s thinking and Augustine’s?

“Indeed, I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”

Please read and compare the two. Who was right?

In Christ,

Thomas

Nickie,

God also let Adam and Eve sin in the Garden.
God also let man become so sinful before the flood that every thought out of his heart was only evil continually.
God also let man build the tower of Babal after the flood.
God also let the Isrealities fall into apostacy under Moses and periodically thereafter.
God also let the Priests and Pharases of Jesus' day become hypocrits.

Given all of this, what makes you think that God would treat the Catholic Chruch any different?

Because all of this happened is it God's fault or man's? I still trust in God. I just don't trust in man or the institutions of man.

I see no contradiction.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,
You're mixing our personal freedom with freedom of an institution formed and managed by God. People within the Church will always sin, no question, but that doesn't make the entire Church sinful (otherwise you would have to argue that all of the apostles fell into apostasy because of Judas).

The question is: did the Old Testament church (which didn't have the power of the Holy Spirit guiding it) fall into apostasy. The temptation is to say yes. But, remember that Christ told His followers to obey what the priests and rabbis taught, just not copy their actions. Also, the Chief Rabbi still had the gift of prophecy despite the fact he was sinful and was actively trying to kill God (Christ). In other words, not even the Old Testament church fell away as you are accusing the New Testament Church (which is guided by the Holy Spirit) of doing.

Second, if the Church fell away so easily, what did Christ mean when He promised that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it"? Was Jesus in error?

Remember, everyone agrees that people can fall away in error, but you haven't proven that the Church can - especially in light of Christ's promise.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

You explain how the Gates of Hades or Hell not prevailing against a church equates to Infallibility of the church..

See the church takes a verse like that and says it means infallibility.. Are you saying that Jesus was inferring that the teachings of the OT
Rabbis Infallible? Were you saying that Jesus said to do what they said and not as they did ?

Also when you use the verse in Timothy about the church being the Pillar and foundation of truth,
what did Paul mean when he said Church ?

There was no institutional church in the first century, There were local churches that did not answer to Jerusalem or to Rome. They were autonomous. Did they report back to James or Peter? Or were the Elders and deacons in the local churches in charge of their local church?

I have a problem understanding HOW the Church gets infallibility from Matthewe 16:18-19

I am not trying to be obstinant .. I am just not seeing it ...

Your brother in Christ ...

Clem

I seem to recall that after I posted an article defending the sinlessness of Mary in light of Romans 3, Jeff and Thomas then challenged me to refute a whole host of other scriptures.

Before continuing this line of discourse, I would like to invite Jeff and Thomas to clarify their position on Romans 3:

Does the verse "all have sinned" in Romans 3 allow for any exceptions whatsoever?

If no, then Jesus has sinned and presumably the verses saying that Elizabeth and Zechariah followed "all God's commandments" means that they were without sin, and so the Bible contradicts itself.

If yes, then I would like Jeff and Thomas to refrain from using Romans 3 as automatic and irrefutable proof in any future diaologues they have concerning Roman Catholic teaching. I'm not asking you to even change your opinion on a single point. I'm simply asking that in the future when discussing whether the Bible supports the sinlessness of Mary, you do not bring up Romans 3 as if it had the power to stifle all further discussion and investigation.

Pax Tecum

Richard,

You cannot separate a word from its context.

It is clear that Paul was describing the state of mankind in relationship with God, and need for faith in a Savior. According to all of Scripture everyone who has lived has been in sin. According to Scripture the God/Man, Christ, must by necessity be a spotless lamb to be the sufficient sacrifice. You must show me clear proof that the Apostles believed otherwise, as it is very clear from the teaching of the Apostles and in fact the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments, as the other verses Jeff and I gave you attest, that all means all minus Christ only.

There is certainly no evidence that the Apostles believed that all didn't include Mary as well, nor is Mary's sinlessness necessary for our redemption. The only reason for this belief is because the Church erroneously teaches that Christ could not have possibly come from the womb of an imperfect woman. Why such a thing is an impossibility remains a question. To God all things are possible.

If "all" doesn't truly mean "all" then maybe there are other exceptions, maybe it doesn't include me as well . . . Your interpretation strips the power and meaning from the verse and renders it impotent.

As far as your comment about Zechariah and Elizabeth, I think that I would need to study that particular passage from the Greek. I would guess that what this passage means is that Z and E conformed to all the outwardly rituals of the Jewish faith. This verse never says that they did not sin. It in fact goes non to describe Z's lack of faith. However to take your argument that all doesn't mean all, then maybe Z and E also were sinless. See how ridiculous this can be?

So I guess my response is, No I do not agree with your interpretation.

In Christ,

Thomas

So if Romans 3 admits no exceptions whatsoever, then why should we even bother talking about or looking at the other passages?

And if Romans 3 admits no exceptions whatsoever, then the other passages in the Bible attesting to the sinlessness of Jesus merely contradict rather than clarify Romans 3.

If we could agree that Romans 3 admits exceptions, then there would be a point in examining the other Scriptures to see what if any exceptions (such as Jesus) we can find.

Richard,

It is clear from the context of the passage that there is only one exception to the word all. This exception is itself clearly stated in the passage. One. That is it. You can bend this admission all you want to fit your theology.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas, if Romans 3 is a proof-text, then your request to discuss the other scriptures makes absolutely no sense.

Richard,

We listed the other verses to show further proof that our interpretation of Romans 3 is the correct one. If you disagree with our interpretation, and say that all doesn't mean all, then please explain what all the other verses, that seem to back up our interpretation, actually mean. In other words we believe that we have given you sufficient proof. You have given us nothing but symantics.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas, why should I waste my breath on the other Scriptures when you already say that Romans 3 is sufficiently clear to stop all discussion? If I were to explain in great detail all the other verses, you would just say that Romans 3 allows for no exceptions.

To put it another way, if Romans 3 is clear enough to stop all discussion, then stop all discussion. Otherwise, if you want to continue discussion, admit that Romans 3 may merit some deeper investigation in a larger context.

Richard,

I'm not going to admit anything, but since I am curious how you are going to attempt to get around this problem, let's assume for argument's sake that I have admitted it.

In Christ,

Thomas

Richard,

I am curious. Do you believe that Mary was born
sinless? Do you believe it was necessary for Christ to be born from a woman who had not sinned? If she did not sin then she didn't need a Savior. Do you believe she did not need a Savior?

If Mary being conceived of parents who were sinners could be born sinless, then Why couldn't Jesus being Conceived by the Power of the HOLY Spirit be born sinless..?

Why did the Catholic church have to come up with
this whole scenerio with Mary? There is NOTHING in scripture besides her being Full of Grace,
that clearly teaches or infers that Mary was born
without sin and remained sinless her entire life.

Why do Catholics venterate Mary and pray to her when the scriptue says that Jesus is our mediator and we have direct access to Him...?

If I wanted something and I had access to the head person, why would I go to one of their aids or to their mother to get them to grant my request? This is illogical thinking...

I know that some things are beyond our understanding but God is a God of Logic not a God of Chaos or confusion ..

Richard, it's teachings like this and many others that make me question the Catholic Church.
I think there are many good teachings by the Catholic church. However I don't think that Matthew 16:18-19 teaches the infallibility of the
Pope or that the verse in Timothy about the Church being the Pillar and Foundation of faith
meaning that the church is infallible are misinterpretations of those scriptures..

Jesus is the Rock the Church is built on, It wasn't Peter. I honestly believe that Jesus and the apostles never intended to build an Institution. One full of Priceless riches and the venerating and bowing down to the ones who are to be serving the Flock of Christ. The church is in the World but not Of the World.

Do you honestly think the Church in Rome is NOT of the things of this world..?

I am not anti Catholic. I attend Mass weekly and pay my tithes to them. I can not give them a pass or close my eyes to the things that they do that do not line up with or are in direct opposition with scripture ...

Your Brother in Christ.

Clem

Clem,

If you want a mature presentation of the Roman Catholic understanding of Mary's sinlessness, try reading Cardinal Newman's Meditations. Any explanation I could offer pales in comparison to the deep insight with which Newman has blessed the Church.

As for Mary's role as intercessor, that also bothered greatly for some time. In time, I learned that the phrase "praying to the blessed virgin" often lends a very wrong understanding as it suggests that Mary answers prayers whereas the Roman Catholic Church does not teach this. The phrase "Ask Mary to pray for you" cleared up much of the misunderstanding for me. In Protestant lingo, we can think of Mary as a "prayer warrior" of the most powerful kind. Many Protestant denominations understand the power of prayer and that God gifts some people with an extra-ordinary ability to "get results" from their prayers. Catholics believe that Mary had this gift and that she continues to use this gift to build up God's people.

Dear Google's scribe

Thank you for the information. I have copied directly from the site so that I would not misrepresent or misquote it: My comments are in brackets [ ]

{8} BY the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin is meant the great revealed truth that she was conceived in the womb of her mother, St. Anne, without original sin.

[Where in scripture old or new testement does it say this]

Since the fall of Adam all mankind, his descendants, are conceived and born in sin. "Behold," says the inspired writer in the Psalm Miserere—"Behold, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me". That sin which belongs to every one of us, and is ours from the first moment of our existence, is the sin of unbelief and disobedience, by which Adam lost Paradise. We, as the children of Adam, are heirs to the consequences of his sin, and have forfeited in him that spiritual robe of grace and holiness which he had given him by his Creator at the time that he was made. In this state of forfeiture {9} and disinheritance we are all of us conceived and born; and the ordinary way by which we are taken out of it is the Sacrament of Baptism.

But Mary never was in this state; she was by the eternal decree of God exempted from it.

[Again where in scripture does it say this ?]

From eternity, God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, decreed to create the race of man, and, foreseeing the fall of Adam, decreed to redeem the whole race by the Son's taking flesh and suffering on the Cross.

In that same incomprehensible, eternal instant, in which the Son of God was born of the Father, was also the decree passed of man's redemption through Him. He who was born from Eternity was born by an eternal decree to save us in Time, and to redeem the whole race;

and Mary's redemption was determined in that special manner which we call the Immaculate Conception.
[Where in scripture does it say this ?]

It was decreed, not that she should be cleansed from sin, but that she should, from the first moment of her being, be preserved from sin; so that the Evil One never had any part in her.

[Where in scripture does it say this?]

Therefore she was a child of Adam and Eve as if they had never fallen; she did not share with them their sin; she inherited the gifts and graces (and more than those) which Adam and Eve possessed in Paradise.

[Where in scripture does it say this?]

This is her prerogative, and the foundation of all those salutary truths which are revealed to us concerning her. Let us say then with all holy souls, Virgin most pure, conceived without original sin, Mary, pray for us.
*************************************
Now, let me ask a legitimate question. Let us say that the roles were reversed and the Protestants were the original religion and the Catholics had broken away from them.

Let us also say that the Protestants had determined what was to be considered Scripture and put the bible together... Got that so far...

Now if the information I copied fron the site about Mary was given to you and the Protestants were saying these things about Mary would you believe them ?

(A)Wouldn't you be asking where in your Holy book is this information?

(B) Wouldn't you be saying if this were such an important doctrine why didn't Jesus teach it?

(C) Why didn't John or any of the Apostles put this information in their Gospels or in the other books of the bible?

(D)Aren't these teachings CHURCH TRADITION and NOT a part of the cannon of recognized scripture?

(E) Can you understand why some have questions about CHURCH TRADITION?

(F) If GOD could make Mary (Conceived of Parents under original sin) free from original sin
then couldn't HE have made Jesus (Concieved by the Power of the Holy Spirit)Free from original sin ?

(G) Why is it so critical for Mary to have been born Sinless? After all if God says something is
Holy or Something is Clean is it Not Clean or
Holy. Aren't ALL THINGS POSSIBLE with GOD ?

Now I will be accussed of being arguementative or
obstinant. But try looking at it from another perspective.

If another denomination came up with such a story you would have the same questions I have.

I am not being arguementative, I am questioning
the whole premise of the story.. Just because Mary was full of Grace, does not mean she was ALWAYS sinless and Remained sinless..

God never said the mother of the Spotless lamb needed to be spotless too.. Show me the requirement in Scripture and maybe I might be able to understand the or believe your story.

Isn't this another Gospel? Didn't Paul warn us against the preaching of another Gospel?

Show me the requirement in scripture that the mother of the sacrifice needed to be spotless or without sin ...

Grace & Peace,

Clem

It's always amazing to me...
I have an idea ..how about instead of jumping to conclusions and judging the discussions of others you could concentrate your God given talents and energies on serving Christ.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/41685_53537_ENG_HTM.htm

God bless.

K,

Please elaborate. Who are you directing this to?
Can't people have discussions and serve Christ?
Or do we only have to due one or the other ?

Your brother in Christ.

Clem

Post a comment