Mary Sinless?

[larry_boy_44]

The Church never taught that Mary didn't need our Saviour, but that her salvation came in anticipation of the redemption given through Jesus Christ.

wrong. If you teach that she never sinned, than you teach that she didn't need a savior. Period.

If you never sin, you don't need a savior. Thankfully, we can all be completely sure that we all will sin at some point, thus we all need a saviour...

 

[Kat8765]

It has only two of those, and they are recent!

The Church only has 2 infallible teachings? I think you are confused.

 

[Kat8765]

you need to study up on your history.

Justin Martyr and Ignatious were decades (if not a century) after the New Testament writings were written.

You're right, I apologize for being a little off on the dates. These men were alive, though, around the end of the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd centuries, writing about things going on in the church at that time. Things that the Catholic Church still believes in to this day.

 

[calluna]

It has only two of those, and they are recent!

The Church only has 2 infallible teachings?

No, the Roman organisation. Two at most.

I think you are confused.

Infallible dogma on civility is obviously overdue.

 

[calluna]

You're right, I apologize for being a little off on the dates.

Do I get no reply?

 

[Kat8765]

What is the Roman organization?

And I didn't think I was being uncivil. I apologize if you took it that way.

 

[calluna]

And I didn't think I was being uncivil.

I can believe it.

 

[calluna]

Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and others right before and around the time the Gospels were written.
​

The Pharisees, Herod and Judas were around before the gospels were written.

Really?
​

Really. Catholics never seem to read the works of their first pope!

the funny thing is no one has broken it for over 2000 years
​

No doubt the Mafia will be around in 2000 years.

The whole mass is the Bible.
​

...doctored beyond recognition.

 

[larry_boy_44]

You're right, I apologize for being a little off on the dates. These men were alive, though, around the end of the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd centuries, writing about things going on in the church at that time. Things that the Catholic Church still believes in to this day.

but the thing is, is that even if they were born in 90 AD, they were still born, what, 20-40 years after the majority of the apostles were dead?? That's more than enough time for humanity to fall away...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and others right before and around the time the Gospels were written.

​

The Pharisees, Herod and Judas were around before the gospels were written.

Really?

​

Really. Catholics never seem to read the works of their first pope!

the funny thing is no one has broken it for over 2000 years

​

No doubt the Mafia will be around in 2000 years.

The whole mass is the Bible.

​

...doctored beyond recognition.

dude, I agree with you somewhat and I don't think this deserves a reply...

 

[calluna]

dude, I agree with you somewhat and I don't think this deserves a reply...

Spoken like a true Catholic.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Spoken like a true Catholic.

I'm about as far from Catholic as anyone can get... Thanks for asking, though...

BTW, you don't deserve an answer 'cuz your a jerk in every single one of your posts. You don't backup what you say and, worst of all, you never answer anything anyone ever asks of you.

Stop hiding behind your keyboard. Grow a backbone or go away.

 

[bbbbbbb]

To clarify a point. There are only four infalliable dogmas which have been declared by ex cathedra statements of a pope. Infallibility itself was not made a doctrine until 1872 and has only been used in 1950 to declare four Marian dogmas as infallible beliefs which must be believed in order to be saved. The Immaculat Conception, the Perpetual Virginity, the Impeccability (sinlessness), and the bodily Assumption into heaven without enduring death by Mary are these four dogmas.

All other teachings of the Catholic church are not infallible dogmas until they are declared to be so by an ex cathedra statement of the Pope. This places the Catholic church in a precarious position, indeed. It gets the church off the hook for multitudes of papal bulls and pronouncements, such as the wonderful bull declaring without a shadow of a doubt that the earth is flat, which it now finds embarrassing. The problem is that the Catholic church can never admit to being wrong about anything ever. The best they can do is assign these things to the dustbin of history, hoping that nobody goes rummaging around there. It also leaves them in the difficult position of relegating essential doctrine to a lesser role than infallible dogma. Thus, doctrines such as that concerning purgatory can be reinvented and made more palatable to a modern audience. It also allows reinterpretation of the role of the Bible and of Tradition, making for a very slithery path to follow.

 

[Kat8765]

I think you guys are getting some things mixed up. There are two types of infallible statements made by the Catholic Church. One is papal infallibility which is rarely used to make definitive statements (infallible teachings). The Pope makes statements all of the time with his encyclicals and addresses etc... These are all considered ordinary teachings and are not defined as infallible. The Pope wants us to take these things into great consideration but we can reject ordinary teachings. All infallible statements are made by the churches extraordinary magesterium. This is like the teaching office of the Vatican. These statments have been made quite often as can be seen by the long list of Catholic Dogmas. I would post a link for you but I can't do that yet. I hope this clears things up a little.

 

[calluna]

I think you guys are getting some things mixed up.

It hardly matters in this thread. The fact is that there is no evidence for Mary's sinlessness worth serious consideration. Reasons to believe that she was a considerable sinner have been ignored, which is deafening evidence of itself.

 

[Kat8765]

I think that the Catholics on this thread have given some great arguements. The truth is that it is hard to back this up scriptualy because it's not explicity revealed there. I don't understand why Protastants say that everything must be stated in the Bible, but then go on to contradict themselves by believing in things such as the trinity, which is not spelled out explicitly in the Bible. Also you except the 27 books of the NT, which is a Catholic tradition. And where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only truth? Nowhere! So really saying that all truths must come from the Bible is unbiblical in itself. If you are gonna believe in Sola Scriptura, shouldn't that be defined in the Bible somewhere? Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss this first.

 

[calluna]

I think that the Catholics on this thread have given some great arguements. The truth is that it is hard to back this up scriptualy because it's not explicity revealed there.

It's not even implicit, either, like the deity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is implicit. The view of Mary other than a normal human being is complete invention from first to last. Bugs Bunny has more reality.

I don't understand why Protastants say

Sometimes I wonder whether Catholics would prefer people to be atheist rather than Protestant.

Maybe not just sometimes.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

calluna;

It's not even implicit, either, like the deity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is implicit. The view of Mary other than a normal human being is complete invention from first to last. Bugs Bunny has more reality.

So from your statement, you don't believe Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ?

Sometimes I wonder whether Catholics would prefer people to be atheist rather than Protestant.

Maybe its your wondering that is the problem, not Catholicism.

Jim

 

[calluna]

calluna;



So from your statement, you don't believe Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ?


Maybe its your wondering that is the problem, not Catholicism.

Jim

When people learn not to use the word 'you', they have learned to debate in a civil manner.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When people learn not to use the word 'you', they have learned to debate in a civil manner.

Then perhaps, YOU shouldn't be posting, because its YOU who made the statenments toward Catholics, that were responded to.


Jim