Replies

I'm not the one denying Christ, you are. You place Christ second to Mary. His position as mediator as been usurped as one example of his usurpation. All to follow after the pelagian heresy denounced by the early fathers.

Your belief in the sinlessness of Mary and all the other abominable doctrines revolving around Mary did not originate with the Apostles, it originated in the fifth century with the heretics Pelagius and Celestius and was universally rejected by both Fathers and popes of the early church, as evidenced by its rejection by Augustine and Gregory the Great, and in later centuries by Anselm, Bernard of Clairveaux, and Thomas Aquinas. The Roman Catholic patristic scholar, Walter Burghardt, confirms the patristic and papal rejection of this doctrine historically:

"Pelagius and Celestius used Mary, the mother of Jesus, as an example of one born free of original sin. Vincent of Lerins points out the origin of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception with these words: 'Who ever originated a heresy that did not first dissever himself from the consentient agreement of the universality and antiquity of the Catholic Church? That this is so is demonstrated in the clearest way by examples. For who ever before the profane Pelagius attributed so much antecedent strength to Free-will, as to deny the necessity of God's grace to aid it towards every good in every single act? Who ever before his monstrous disciple Celestius denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin?' (Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory 24.62, Series Two, vol. XI, of Schaff and Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 149-50).

Again, I'm not the one following heresies: YOU ARE.

You don't really know about The Church at all -- your statements are indication of that -- your pastors have fed you their lies. Like for instance your statement that You place Christ second to Mary. If you did attend a mass, you'd find Christ mentioned throughout and Mary may be mentioned once or twice (depending on the readings for that day). Secondly, Mary is considered as co-operating with Christ in Her salvation -- co-operating in the sense that she said YES when the angel came to her.

The sinlessness of Mary -- another point which you have been fed false propaganda. Mary was sinless not because of anything she did or any power of her own but BECAUSE OF GOD's GRACE. Mary owes everything in her position to God. God purified the ark in which was placed the first covenant, and He did the same with the second ark -- when the angel comes, he calls Mary "filled with grace" -- filled with the Grace of God. And anyone filled to the brim with God's grace cannot sin --> God's grace saves us even when we are touched by it, how much more would God's grace filled to the brim save another creature, a creature like Mary?

The belief in the sinlessness of Mary dates back to the time when the Gospels say the angel called her "filled with Grace" -- this, as I said, is a favor of God on one of His creatures. This in no way contradicts scripture and is in fact written in scripture. ("filled with grace").

Your statement that it was Pelegius who quoted it is again a symbol of how much propaganda your pastors have fed. Pelegius believed that we could save ourselves with works alone. This was and is rejected by The Church. If Pelegius believed that we could save ourselves and didn't need God's grace, then for him to admit the sinlessness of MAry is to deny his own theorem - he would have contradicted himself