Church Fathers And Roman Bishops Who Believed That Mary Was A Sinner

[shinbits]

If the Holy Spirit weren't involved, I might agree with you. But Tradition is not from man. Your criteria that the Word of God must come, and can only come, in a written format, is, ironically, in itself, a man-made criteria imposed by modern man on God, and this criteria is especially ironically, unbiblical.

I never said the Word of God can only come in written form. I said the most reliable source of God's Word is from the Bible.

 

[shinbits]

The is an awfully broad statement about Catholicism.

You're right, and I take that back. What I mean to say, is that unlike Protestants, there's no reason for Catholics to disagree about the Bible, when they believe the word of the Church is the final authority.

 

[lionroar0]

You're right, and I take that back. What I mean to say, is that unlike Protestants, there's no reason for Catholics to disagree about the Bible, when they believe the word of the Church is the final authority.

We belive that the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church is the final authority.

Peace

 

[simonthezealot]

We belive that the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church is the final authority.

Peace

Yes your church believes that the promised Spirit was given to your church and your church ALONE.

IOW you are the church because your church says you are the church and it can't err because the Spirits promise is to her and her alone, a perfectly indefectable situation...Does this pretty much sum it up?

 

[shinbits]

We belive that the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church is the final authority.

Peace

But when Catholic doctrine contradicts the Bible, like Mary being sinless, even though the Bible says more than once that all descendents of Adam sinned, then you need to question whether It's really the Holy Spirit or not, that's behind RCC doctrine.

 

[Trento]

wrong again. Even if the Bible is interpreted differently, at least we have something solid to interpret in the first place. With oral tradition, there's nothing solid at all. Just words that can't be confirmed as to who said it, or where it came from.

Something solid.

Mary's Magnificat was voiced just after Elizabeth greeted her as the Mother of the Lord. This was well before she gave birth to Jesus.

How can Mary be rejoicing in God her Savior, when the Savior was not yet even born, let alone completed His redemptive work on the cross. UNLESS, she was saved from her sin prior to this time. The angel called her "one having been already fully graced.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is far more than one denomination that claims inspiration from the Holy Spirit in proclaiming infallible truths not found in the Bible. Unfortunately, these denominations are at variance with each other primarily because they believe that they and they along possess all of God's truth and are God's sole church on earth. So the question comes down to which one to believe, if any?

The Mormon means of ascertaining this answer is earnest prayer and soul searching. If one does not come up with the expected answer, then they obviously are either insincere or not diligent in their prayerful search.

The RCC answer is less sophisticated. It is to simply take their word on the matter as infallible truth because it is infallible truth that they alone believe and proclaim. End of discussion.

 

[shinbits]

Something solid.

Mary's Magnificat was voiced just after Elizabeth greeted her as the Mother of the Lord. This was well before she gave birth to Jesus.

How can Mary be rejoicing in God her Savior, when the Savior was not yet even born, let alone completed His redemptive work on the cross. UNLESS, she was saved from her sin prior to this time. The angel called her "one having been already fully graced.

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. You'll have to elaborate.

But the Bible says that Mary was pregnant when she rejoiced in her Savior. Jesus may not have been born yet, but he certainly existed, and was on his way. That's why Mary rejoiced.

 

[Catholic_NE]

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. You'll have to elaborate.

But the Bible says that Mary was pregnant when she rejoiced in her Savior. Jesus may not have been born yet, but he certainly existed, and was on his way. That's why Mary rejoiced.

I think it points to the fact that God isn't constrained by time. Mary (and others) spoke of "her Savior" even though Christ's saving death was still many years in the future. More to the point, Mary could already be called gratia plena (cf. the Vulgate translation of Luke 1).

 

[lionroar0]

Yes your church believes that the promised Spirit was given to your church and your church ALONE.

IOW you are the church because your church says you are the church and it can't err because the Spirits promise is to her and her alone, a perfectly indefectable situation...Does this pretty much sum it up?

Not accurate.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

But when Catholic doctrine contradicts the Bible, like Mary being sinless, even though the Bible says more than once that all descendents of Adam sinned, then you need to question whether It's really the Holy Spirit or not, that's behind RCC doctrine.

If u haven't already pls show where the Bible says that all of Adams descendents have sinned. If you have already posted it could you refer me to it?


Peace

 

[shinbits]

Sorry for the late reply, I got married shortly after the last post on this thread.

If u haven't already pls show where the Bible says that all of Adams descendents have sinned. If you have already posted it could you refer me to it?


Peace

Romans 5:12

"12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

Chapter 5 of Romans illustrates how Adam's sin caused us to be sinners, and as a result, "all have sinned". Catholic doctrine outright contradicts the Bible here.

 

[lionroar0]

Sorry for the late reply, I got married shortly after the last post on this thread.



Romans 5:12

"12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

Chapter 5 of Romans illustrates how Adam's sin caused us to be sinners, and as a result, "all have sinned". Catholic doctrine outright contradicts the Bible here.

A nope. Catholic doctrine teaches that Mary needed a savior.

Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Without going into some of these specifically, it is no secret that some of the Church Fathers thought Mary may have sinned, and that some of them believed her to be pure. But I think a misunderstanding of what Tradition is, is called for here, particularly doctrinal development as the theology is sorted out. Not that it doesn't matter what the ECFs had to say, but that if some can be found that do not hold to the doctrine that developed after their lifetimes does not change the truth of the matter, or that her Immaculate Conception has been divinely revealed. In fact, they all did their part in developing the theology whether they believed she may have sinned or not.

Let's see if I understand this. Nothing below is meant to be sacrastic or disrespectful in any way, it is a natural and reasonable discussion based on the typical Catholic proclaimation that all it teaches was taught by Christ and the Apostles and that it has never changed, added or subtracted anything from such.

According to the RCC, Jesus taught just a WHOLE BUNCH of dogmas that God chose to not tell the church in His Holy Scriptures, but (for reasons unknown) He did choose to tell to the RCC as a sort of "Second Testimony" (as Mormons call it). This all 14 Apostles taught, thus it is "apostolic."

And it was told to someone who told it to someone who told it to someone who told it to someone who told it to someone - all in the RCC - all prefectly and infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit - and this went on for centuries. In some cases for over a millennium. Then, pop, the RCC decided it shouldn't be a secret anyone but should be revealed to the church, and so it did. Here it is: What Jesus taught, the Holy Spirit kept from us in Scripture, but now the RCC is telling us. Another dogma.

Okay. I understand all that. But it does raise two questions in the minds of millions:

1. IF the RCC always knew exactlythis "second testimony," when why don't we see it being taught by Catholics - consistantly and universally? Why this "debate" among Catholic Bishops - one says this, one says that? Did some of the Bishops purposely lie - saying what they knew wasn't true, just to keep everyone confused until the Pope decided to finally reveal the Truth?

2. IF the RCC always knew exactly this "second testimony," then why didn't it just tell us? None of it has any mention for at least 100 years after Easter - so EVERYONE kept it a secret for at least a century. But some of it wasn't mentioned for at least 1000 years. Meanwhile, people were in darkness on that subject and the RCC was keeping Truth a secret from us. Why? Why didn't the RCC do what the LDS did - just write it down and tell the world, right away? Why keep us in darkness for centuries and centuries? In fact, we STILL don't know what the RCC has known for 2000 years but hasn't told us - who is to say that in 2305 AD, it won't reveal some other dogma. "Oh, we never got around to telling you this one before." The EO seems "finished" a long time ago, the OO even before that - but the RCC certainly does not. Why allow false teachings to be proclaimed, even by Catholics, when the RCC KNOWS everything Jesus and and Apostles taught, it secretly holds on to the Second Testimony. Why not just tell us? Why didn't it in 31 AD?


Now, I know the response of my Catholic teachers on this, and I'm pretty sure I could write your reply for you. But, IMHO, all such does is largely contradict the claim. It seems to ME the reality is that the RCC is just like all other denominations - past and present. Issues came up. Debates happened. The desire was to allow the issue to resolve itself and not officially rule on it, but occasionally and eventually, the issue was so problemmatic that some official resolution was needed. Christians prayed, studied, discussed, searched the Scriptures, argued, prayed, waited, searched the Scriptures - and eventually, came to a position (often with the help of unusually wise and helpful men - whom denominations sometimes call their "fathers"). A consensus either formed or flowed from that - and it "worked." Sometimes, in the future, it was further developed or expanded or revised. Non-Catholics can even go back and say it originally was flawed - and needs to be revisited. Now, TODAY, looking back, we often see these resolutions as both biblical and wise - and perhaps we even see divine providence in such (in answer to prayer, if nothing else). But it's not that someone sent the Pope to the fault to go get the "Second Testimony" secrets and see if anything there applied, and the Pope - relunctantly - decided he now had to share the secret (or maybe the smallest part of such required) and reveal it to the church; centuries later, the Pope might reveal a bit more on that topic if required.


Anyway, those seem like reasonable questions based on the claims of Catholics. I know the RCC response.



.

 

[shinbits]

A nope. Catholic doctrine teaches that Mary needed a savior.

Peace

Catholic doctrine also teaches that Mary was sinless. As clearly shown in my last post, this contradicts the Bible.

Catholic doctrine outright contradicts Biblical teaching.

 

[lionroar0]

Catholic doctrine also teaches that Mary was sinless. As clearly shown in my last post, this contradicts the Bible.

Catholic doctrine outright contradicts Biblical teaching.

It also teaches that She needed a savior. Jesus

Which is biblical. As I stated clearly in my last post



Peace

 

[shinbits]

It also teaches that She needed a savior. Jesus

Which is biblical. As I stated clearly in my last post



Peace

What is good teaching one Scripture while contradicting another? It's sad that some Catholics like you have no problem with that.

 

[Catholic_NE]

What is good teaching one Scripture while contradicting another?

I don't claim to speak for lionroar0, but I would say: No good at all.

On the other hand I don't believe Catholic teaching contradicts any Scripture (properly understood) so I don't see a problem.

 

[lionroar0]

I don't claim to speak for lionroar0, but I would say: No good at all.

On the other hand I don't believe Catholic teaching contradicts any Scripture (properly understood) so I don't see a problem.

Neither do I

Peace

 

[shinbits]

Neither do I

Peace

so basically, your argument has resorted to "nuh-uh!". not surprising.

peace.