Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The issue here is that to prevent the transmission of original sin is an act of grace and salvation. Jesus being the savior, cannot himself have needed to be saved. To prevent transmission of sin from Mary to Jesus would necessitate that Jesus was saved by grace.

Catholic and Orthodox teaching do not claim that Mary did not need to be saved. In Catholic doctrine, the immaculate conception of Mary is viewed as an act of Grace, merited by Jesus Christ as all Grace is, by which Mary was saved from sin.

The only difference is that she was saved from sin in the sense that she was prevented from receiving original sin, while we are saved from sin by being delivered from it after.

When you ask "have they thought this through" you should probably make sure you actually understand what they are actually saying and believing.



Catholics fully agree with this. Mary's true blessedness is not that she bore Christ in the flesh, which is truly a great honor, but rather that she is first in the order of Grace, and that she most closely of any human being knew, and loved our Lord and that her whole life was built around saying yes to God.

I would suggest the issue is that Scripture nowhere teaches Mary was immaculately conceived nor was it necessary. As the author pointed out, if God had prevented Mary's parents from passing on original sin to her, God could have, in the same way, protected Jesus from original sin. It was not necessary for Mary to have been born without original sin. Given that, and given the lack of Scriptural support for the doctrine of her immaculate conception, there is no reason to believe in it. It is a man-made doctrine meant to elevate Mary in a way Scripture does not.

 

[Valletta]

I would suggest the issue is that Scripture nowhere teaches Mary was immaculately conceived nor was it necessary. As the author pointed out, if God had prevented Mary's parents from passing on original sin to her, God could have, in the same way, protected Jesus from original sin. It was not necessary for Mary to have been born without original sin. Given that, and given the lack of Scriptural support for the doctrine of her immaculate conception, there is no reason to believe in it. It is a man-made doctrine meant to elevate Mary in a way Scripture does not.

The Holy Trinity is not specifically taught in Scripture either. God could have done things anyway He so chose, so really nothing was "necessary" for God, that in no way does not mean it didn't happen. Your speculation is man-made and nowhere is it found in the Bible.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The Holy Trinity is not specifically taught in Scripture either. God could have done things anyway He so chose, so really nothing was "necessary" for God, that in no way does not mean it didn't happen. Your speculation is man-made and nowhere is it found in the Bible.

The problem is that your (Catholic) speculation is man-made and not found in the Bible. I don't need to speculate that it's not found in the Bible. It's not there.

 

[Valletta]

The problem is that your (Catholic) speculation is man-made and not found in the Bible. I don't need to speculate that it's not found in the Bible. It's not there.

Your requirement that in order to be true it must be spelled out in the Bible is man-made--there is no such requirement in the Bible. The Holy Trinity is real.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Your requirement that in order to be true it must be spelled out in the Bible is man-made--there is no such requirement in the Bible. The Holy Trinity is real.

Only Scripture is called God-breathed. Jesus said our food is the Word of God. We are warned against false teachers. Paul commended the Bereans for testing his teaching by Scripture. You accept the teaching of your church as equal to Scripture and you don't question it. Yet Paul praised the Bereans for testing him by Scripture! You call that man-made? Straight from the mouth of an inspired Apostle.

 

[Valletta]

Only Scripture is called God-breathed. Jesus said our food is the Word of God. We are warned against false teachers. Paul commended the Bereans for testing his teaching by Scripture. You accept the teaching of your church as equal to Scripture and you don't question it. Yet Paul praised the Bereans for testing him by Scripture! You call that man-made? Straight from the mouth of an inspired Apostle.

There's nothing wrong with Paul praising someone, that's a lot different than your man-made teaching that something MUST be in Scripture in order to be true. In fact Jesus did many things, performed many miracles, that are not in the Bible--that contradicts your teaching. Realize that God's Word is more than Holy Scripture. We are to stand fast by all of God's Word.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

There's nothing wrong with Paul praising someone, that's a lot different than your man-made teaching that something MUST be in Scripture in order to be true. In fact Jesus did many things, performed many miracles, that are not in the Bible--that contradicts your teaching. Realize that God's Word is more than Holy Scripture. We are to stand fast by all of God's Word.

Do you test your Magisterium by the Scriptures? What would you do if ypu found them wrong? Luther asked his accusers to show where he erred in regard to Scripture. They refused. He was expected to blindly obey and not question. How does that compare to Paul? Can you imagine him refusing to answer?

The only Word of God we have is the written Word. All other teachings were tested against it. The traditions of men are not the Word of God.

 

[Valletta]

Do you test your Magisterium by the Scriptures? What would you do if ypu found them wrong? Luther asked his accusers to show where he erred in regard to Scripture. They refused. He was expected to blindly obey and not question. How does that compare to Paul? Can you imagine him refusing to answer?

The only Word of God we have is the written Word. All other teachings were tested against it. The traditions of men are not the Word of God.

The Magisterium decided on the books of the Bible. The 73 books of the Bible were tested against the teachings of the Magisterium that were passed down from Jesus through the Apostles. Luther was asked many times to meet with the pope but Luther refused. Luther wanted a number of books removed from the Bible, he was able to get some, but not all, of the books he wanted removed from the Protestant version of the Bible. For example, Revelation remains. But all of this avoids the fact that your teaching is not spelled out in the Bible, the same way that you demand for various teachings about Mary be spelled out in the Bible else you say they cannot be true.

 

[JoeT]

Only Scripture is called God-breathed. Jesus said our food is the Word of God. We are warned against false teachers. Paul commended the Bereans for testing his teaching by Scripture. You accept the teaching of your church as equal to Scripture and you don't question it. Yet Paul praised the Bereans for testing him by Scripture! You call that man-made? Straight from the mouth of an inspired Apostle.

Are we to assume Jesus Christ left this world without first writing in a Book yet holds a verbatim test at the gates to heaven? How does it follow that St. Paul addressed Timothy, a priest and bishop, to teach all who are incapable of reading due to ignorance or intellectual capacity? Are such 'doomed' according to the Protestant paradigm? Does Salvation come from a Book or from understanding the precepts and concepts of Sacred Scripture? In my ignorance how do I know the "odor of life unto life" unless some man show me? [Acts 8:31]? Was the eunuch sent on his way to perdition because he couldn't understand or recite scripture? What about the many that adulterate Christ's words from ignorance of the meaning [2 Corinthians 2:17]? Equally important, where does Sacred Scripture say that Salvation comes from the good book alone? Is reciting the Book from memory a sign of faith?

St. Paul preached, the Bereans simply fact checked the Old Testament to see if St. Paul was telling them correctly. And they did so with the Old Testament, given that the New Testament was yet to be written. It was the oral 'word' that brought them to Christ, not the Old Testament.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The Magisterium decided on the books of the Bible. The 73 books of the Bible were tested against the teachings of the Magisterium that were passed down from Jesus through the Apostles. Luther was asked many times to meet with the pope but Luther refused. Luther wanted a number of books removed from the Bible, he was able to get some, but not all, of the books he wanted removed from the Protestant version of the Bible. For example, Revelation remains. But all of this avoids the fact that your teaching is not spelled out in the Bible, the same way that you demand for various teachings about Mary be spelled out in the Bible else you say they cannot be true.

The books of the Bible were decided by Christians before there was a Catholic church.

I don't know the history behind Luther's refusal to meet with the Pope but my guess would be that he wanted a public discussion so others could hear.

If I ever got to meet with the Pope, I would share the Gospel with him. I believe he teaches a false Gospel. Works salvation.

Are we to assume Jesus Christ left this world without first writing in a Book yet holds a verbatim test at the gates to heaven? How does it follow that St. Paul addressed Timothy, a priest and bishop, to teach all who are incapable of reading due to ignorance or intellectual capacity? Are such 'doomed' according to the Protestant paradigm? Does Salvation come from a Book or from understanding the precepts and concepts of Sacred Scripture? In my ignorance how do I know the "odor of life unto life" unless some man show me? [Acts 8:31]? Was the eunuch sent on his way to perdition because he couldn't understand or recite scripture? What about the many that adulterate Christ's words from ignorance of the meaning [2 Corinthians 2:17]? Equally important, where does Sacred Scripture say that Salvation comes from the good book alone? Is reciting the Book from memory a sign of faith?

St. Paul preached, the Bereans simply fact checked the Old Testament to see if St. Paul was telling them correctly. And they did so with the Old Testament, given that the New Testament was yet to be written. It was the oral 'word' that brought them to Christ, not the Old Testament.

JoeT

Are we to assume Jesus Christ left this world without first writing in a Book yet holds a verbatim test at the gates to heaven? How does it follow that St. Paul addressed Timothy, a priest and bishop, to teach all who are incapable of reading due to ignorance or intellectual capacity? Are such 'doomed' according to the Protestant paradigm? Does Salvation come from a Book or from understanding the precepts and concepts of Sacred Scripture? In my ignorance how do I know the "odor of life unto life" unless some man show me? [Acts 8:31]? Was the eunuch sent on his way to perdition because he couldn't understand or recite scripture? What about the many that adulterate Christ's words from ignorance of the meaning [2 Corinthians 2:17]? Equally important, where does Sacred Scripture say that Salvation comes from the good book alone? Is reciting the Book from memory a sign of faith?

St. Paul preached, the Bereans simply fact checked the Old Testament to see if St. Paul was telling them correctly. And they did so with the Old Testament, given that the New Testament was yet to be written. It was the oral 'word' that brought them to Christ, not the Old Testament.

JoeT

There will be no test at the gates of heaven. Salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. That can be taught orally from the Scriptures. One does not have to read the Bible to gain salvation. However, reading the Bible is our principal means of learning more about God. Romans 12:1-2. We transform our minds through the reading of Scripture. For those who cannot read, it can be read to them or they can listen to the Bible on tape.

Just because the first-century believers did not have the completed NT, doesn't mean we should not base our faith upon it. We are blessed to have it. The NT was completed being written within 60 years after Jesus' death and resurrection. Parts of it were written and circulated well before then. You also had Apostles still alive and disciples. First-hand witnesses. The farther we get from events, the less reliable verbal descriptions become. That is why we need the written Word.

The Gospel message is simple. Not all of theology is. We need the written Word to fully understand God's revelation to us. We are told it is "God-breathed." Inspired word-for-word by the Holy Spirit. It is our sure guide to truth. When a church comes along centuries later and wants to add to the revelation of the written Word, its teaching must be tested by that Word. Yes, Jesus taught many things and not all are found in Scripture but God gave us what we needed in Scripture. He could have inspired men to write many more books with other words of Jesus but He did not. He gave us all we need for this life. The time of the Apostles and the Prophets is over. We look for no new revelation.

Salvation comes from God. Not a book or a church. It is the Gospel found in that book we proclaim.

 

[Valletta]

The books of the Bible were decided by Christians before there was a Catholic church.

False. You just brought up Luther, who wanted books from the Catholic canon dropped, and was successful with some but not other books for the Protestant Bible. In the early centuries the Gospels were widely accepted as readings at Catholic mass, but the readings from other books varied from region to region. The Catholic Church wanted only God-breathed text for mass readings. The process of selecting the books of the Bible spanned centuries. The Catholic Church kept getting closer to the final list as time progressed., with Revelation being the last NT book decided upon. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. All Bibles in Europe contained the same 73 books until Protestants dropped books from their version during the reformation.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

False. You just brought up Luther, who wanted books from the Catholic canon dropped, and was successful with some but not other books for the Protestant Bible. In the early centuries the Gospels were widely accepted as readings at Catholic mass, but the readings from other books varied from region to region. The Catholic Church wanted only God-breathed text for mass readings. The process of selecting the books of the Bible spanned centuries. The Catholic Church kept getting closer to the final list as time progressed., with Revelation being the last NT book decided upon. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. All Bibles in Europe contained the same 73 books until Protestants dropped books from their version during the reformation.

I think we have to differentiate between the Catholic (as in Roman Catholic) church and the "catholic" (as in universal church). What I believe Jesus established was the catholic church which was not meant to be confined to one ecclesiastical body. It was universal in that it was worldwide and had all the essential doctrines in common. It also based its teachings on the Scriptures.

The early church did not have a defined ecclesiastical structure. Most churches were independent yet unified in their teaching as the letters of Paul and other NT writings began to be shared and circulated. Local churches would elect one pastor to the bishop of the church. Later, as cities and churches grew, there was often a bishop over the city. James, the Lord's half-brothers, was the first bishop of Jerusalem. This title of bishop is not to be confused with the later Catholic office of bishop. The key difference is that the early bishops were locally elected whereas Catholic bishops are appointed. There was no Pope, no College of Cardinals, and many other unique teachings of the Catholic church were not yet in place. It really wasn't until after Constantine became the first Christian Emporer that the bishop of Rome began to take on a larger significance.

I would consider the early church fathers Christians, not Catholics. They were leading men of the early church (church not Catholic church). They did gather at times to discuss a response to false teaching. Later, some of these gatherings were conferred by the Catholic Church but not all the early ones. The Canon of Scripture began before 100 A.D. and we have different lists left to us at different times. With the exception of 7 NT books, the rest were accepted with little or no debate and had long been recognized as Scripture. It did not take a council or Pope to "make them official." You can point to a date in history after which the Canon did not change much but the Canon developed over centuries and it was a process of recognizing what God had already blessed as opposed to choosing.

I would say it was the Christian Church that recognized the Canon in stages. The Catholic Church was a 4th or 5th-century church that became the first organized church with an ecclesiastical structure but to claim the Catholic Church goes back to the Apostles is a bit inaccurate. It started with independent Christian churches with no formal ecclesiastical structure over them. It wasn't until the 4th - 5th century that you began to have that. For a time, the Christian churches were falling under that structure but as that became more formal and as Rome became more insistent in its control of structure and doctrine, there were those who disagreed. Long before the Reformation there was the great east/west schism that broke the Catholic Church into two parts with the new Orthodox Churches in the east. They did not recognize the authority of the Pope. Their doctrine was very similar but there were some doctrinal differences. In time other disagreements arose that eventually led to the Reformation but men like Jon Huss in Czechoslovakia were martyrs for the faith before the Reformation.

So what is Christ's church? Is it the Roman Catholic Church? The Orthodox churches? The Protestant Churches? All can trace themselves back to the Apostles. Remember, the Reformation churches came out of the Roman Catholic church. They split over doctrine but had the same history up until that point in time. The RCC later claimed an apostolic succession back to Peter but there were centuries before there was a universally recognized Pope. I contend that any church that teaches the Scriptures faithfully is Christ's church today. His body is not limited to one ecclesiastical structure. His Spirit leads all who will listen and obey. There have been splits and reformations as believers sought to correct errors. This is normal and healthy as the truth is worth dividing over if necessary.

There were several canons before Athanasius'. His might have been the first that included all the books eventually adopted but it was not the first.

 

[Valletta]

There were several canons before Athanasius'. His might have been the first that included all the books eventually adopted but it was not the first.

I just explained how the process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries. Since there were differences in which books were used at Catholic masses from region to region obviously there were different lists. Saint Athanasius indeed is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon in 367 A.D., there is not one list in existence before that to back up your theory. Roman" or 'Latin" is one of the rites of the Catholic Church. Until the time of Constantine the Catholic Church was persecuted by the Roman Empire, and things did change at that time. Realize that masses were held in secret before that, Catholics thought of creating physical church buildings to celebrate mass. But it was maybe ten to twenty years before the ideas of what the church buildings should look like was decided upon and construction began.

 

[JulieB67]

I've never come across any contradictions, I don't know who told you that.

Judith is one of the easiest to check out. The catholic church to cover the fact makes light of it some even suggesting that the errors are done on purpose with a sense of irony in the story or whatever. But still most believe it's fact even though they have had difficulties trying to answer to the errors.

And one usually writing historical fiction can do so without changing historical facts that we know to be true. Especially when it comes to the Bible, Why change facts? The bible is God inspired. He is not the author of confusion.

And the fact remains that this book contradicts what's written in the other books. The biggest is claiming Nabuchodonosor was an Assyrian king when we know he was a Babylonian king. It claims he ruled from Nineveh when it had already been destroyed and so on. Some of the cities are proposed to be fictional and the list goes on.

It's one thing to write a fictional story but to have such blatant historical errors which we know to be false is why again, the argument that the CC put together the books so therefore they are the only one "true" church doesn't hold water for me. I don't believe God deals in fiction. Obviously others believe differently. They consider this book to be canon -deuterocanonical. Even with the many errors/contradictions including historical, geographical, etc.

This article from Catholic Answers even notes that most with a few exceptions accept Judith as fact, not an allegory or fiction

HISTORICITY.—Catholics with very few exceptions accept the Book of Judith as a narrative of facts, not as an allegory.

Pointing out-

Why carry out the genealogy of a fictitious person through fifteen generations?

And I say, exactly -why? What's the purpose if it's meant to be regarded as fiction?

Against this traditional view there are, it must be confessed, very serious difficulties, due,

Goes on to lay out all the discrepancies and states

These are serious difficulties, and a Catholic student must be prepared to meet them

And there are two ways do so etc..... which most likely you have already done so.

For myself, I again don't believe God deals in fiction, not when it comes to his Word. He doesn't have to. Parables and analogies are entirely different and presented in a way that doesn't change historical fact. There would be no reason to do so and it would only cause confusion -which I believe the book of Judith does.

It's one thing to have a fictional story but I don't believe it should be considered part of the Word of God/inspired by God.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I just explained how the process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries. Since there were differences in which books were used at Catholic masses from region to region obviously there were different lists. Saint Athanasius indeed is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon in 367 A.D., there is not one list in existence before that to back up your theory. Roman" or 'Latin" is one of the rites of the Catholic Church. Until the time of Constantine the Catholic Church was persecuted by the Roman Empire, and things did change at that time. Realize that masses were held in secret before that, Catholics thought of creating physical church buildings to celebrate mass. But it was maybe ten to twenty years before the ideas of what the church buildings should look like was decided upon and construction began.

Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John.

 

[JoeT]

Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John.

You're shooting yourself in the foot, the Muratorian Fragment states "yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth." One Divine Truth, One Divine Church.

JoeT

 

[Valletta]

Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John.

Clement, the fourth pope. As I said, the process spanned centuries and Revelation, which the Catholic mass very much parallels, was the last decided upon book of the New Testament.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

You're shooting yourself in the foot, the Muratorian Fragment states "yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth." One Divine Truth, One Divine Church.

JoeT

The Roman Catholic Church did not yet exist in 170 A.D. there was no well-established ecclesiastical structure. The RCC later tried to trace a line back to Peter but there was no documented succession of a supreme leader of the church. You had various bishops in different cities, but they did not report to a central bishop or pope. They were unified in the teachings of the Apostles and the written Word though there were already some differences of opinion on certain doctrines.

Of course, there is only one truth. There can only be one. Just as there is only one body of Christ, that is his "church" not a "Church." The RCC church developed at a later time.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Clement, the fourth pope. As I said, the process spanned centuries and Revelation, which the Catholic mass very much parallels, was the last decided upon book of the New Testament.

There is nothing sacred about the mass. God did not give us one and only one way to gather and worship. What truly differentiates the mass from other forms of worship is transubstantiation which is a later belief and practice.

 

[Valletta]

There is nothing sacred about the mass. God did not give us one and only one way to gather and worship. What truly differentiates the mass from other forms of worship is transubstantiation which is a later belief and practice.

Jesus commanded us to "Do this" which includes saying the words of consecration and consuming the Eucharist. It so holy that Paul told us:
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” Corinthians 11:27
What happens during the consecration has not changed in almost 2000 years, the Church eventually came up with a name to describe what happens, "transubstantiation."