Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
That some fathers advanced similar ideas cautiously and before they became the center of Protestant set of errors, does not make them right. Moreover, typically the Protestant authors read the Fathers just as sloppily as they read the Bible. If you want to focus on one particular passage among several that you provided links for, post it and I'll discuss it.
For example, the first quote from Chrysostom in the first link can serve to prove the Catholic dogma that Baptism saves in itself and also that the person just baptized is free from sin and unless he commits a further sin is going to heaven, guaranteed. It does not logically expand into the notion that anyone believing in Christ is automatically saved just by that. Sloppy work.
says the cut and paste champion of the world!!!
actually, your authority to judge ANYTHING could be questioned.
the Catholic church is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.....always.
I generally agree with your post. The purpose of St. Paul thickening the paint in Romans 3 is indeed to remind us that sin is sin, — at least if committed with full knowledge and willfully.
But the fact remains that “all have sinned” is in the context of “venom on the lips” and “feet quick to shed blood”, so unless you are prepared to advance the idea that Mary hastily murdered someone, you need to take the entire passage as a poetic exaggeration, including the “all” in it.
The woman is identified as the mother of "a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne" (Rev 12:5) Later, that son is also named; his name is Christ (Rev. 12:10,17).
I have wondered about that all through this thread...He is OBVIOUSLY far more learned and educated than the majority, of the posters here. My concern is why he would have stopped short of accepting Christianity in its entirety.
To be a Christian, which he certainly is, and not to have the absolutely magnificent gift of Christ..the Eucharist ...boggles the imagination.
The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine has been a mainstay of Catholicism and thus Christianity for over 2,000 years.
It is such a major part of what Christ left us that to deny it is unimaginable.
The notion is nevertheless not false. Indeed, the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary is not spelled out in the scripture, which is just fine by us.
Origen is generally not free from error; he was never glorified as saint and a certain heresy, Origenism is ascribed to him. Mor eimportantly, one can find among the works of the fathers of the Church almost anything (including some Protestant ideas); it is the consensus that counts, not outliers.
what is this belief based on?
The belief in the immaculate conception is a longstanding belief of the Church that was elevated into dogma in 19 Century. It is based on that: the ancient belief. However, the scripture suggest something like this: the angel called Mary "full of grace" (κεχαριτωμενη). Now that word is interesting. It is a past-perfect passive tense (who had been given grace). So what other significant event in the life of Mary prior to the Annunciation was there? Nothing except her conception. So it is a reasonable conjecture that she had been filled with grace since conception.
It would not be enough to find a small sin in Mary because Romans 3 speaks of deceit and murder that “all” are guilty of. If you want to take “all” literally, take the whole passage literally.
so, if I love my Father a lot, I don't have enough love left over for my Mother....please...kind of a childish analogy....at best
But the fact remains that “all have sinned” is in the context of “venom on the lips” and “feet quick to shed blood”, so unless you are prepared to advance the idea that Mary hastily murdered someone, you need to take the entire passage as a poetic exaggeration, including the “all” in it.
You continue to ignore 1 John 1:8-10.
Remember, keep everything in context in the Bible. Read the rest of Romans and you will see Paul advance the idea of all have sinned....including Mary.
I still find it interesting that in all of the NT, neither Paul, Peter, James, Jude, Luke, Matthew, Mark, John, or any of the other writers in the OT ever, ever included or alluded to, an exception regarding Mary.
This false teaching regarding Mary's "sinlessness" flies against all that Luke wrote about.
Why do catholics persist, when their own apologists admit, that there is no Biblical support for the immaculate concenption, in adhering to this false teaching?
I have asked you several times why, yet you will not or cannot answer. Amazing.
Peter was renamed and given keys to Heaven and the power to bind and loose because he professed his faith so clearly.
AMEN!
God bless you!
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar!
You are criticizing Xzins.....yeah, right....lots of luck...snicker
If you read the whole chapter, you will see for yourself... If you aren’t willing to read, I don’t think I can take your post seriously.
Have you ever made an outline of I Corinthians? It would be a great help to you.
TC: so, if I love my Father a lot, I don't have enough love left over for my Mother....please...kind of a childish analogy....at best.
Do you fall down on your knees before your dad?
Do you believe the following? Substitute your dad's name in place of Mary's. You should be able to see the difference.
If you persevere until death in true devotion to Mary, you salvation is certain. St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori
He who is faithful in the service of Mary will certainly be saved . . .There is no one, however wicked, whom Mary does not save by her intercession when she wishes . . . He who has recourse to Mary shall be saved. St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori
However great a sinner may have been, if he shows himself devout to Mary he will never perish. St. Hilary of Poitiers
Mary was made Mother of God to obtain salvation for many who, on account of their wicked lives, could not be saved according to the rigor of Divine justice, but might be saved with the help of her sweet mercy and powerful intercession. St. John Chrysostom
This last one of the cart blanch card....ask Mary whatever you want and God has to give it to you....utter blasphemy.
If I love Mary, I am certain of perseverance, and I shall obtain whatever I wish from God. St. John Berchmans
All those who seek Mary's protection will be saved for all eternity. Pope Benedict XV
Praising and honoring — in short, venerating — a saint IS honoring and praising and glorifying Christ Who made them saints.
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/report.aspx?id=4281
Keanu was among 1,500 students from some 15 Catholic elementary and high schools in South Florida at a youth rally and Mass for Blessed John Paul II at St. Thomas University in Miami.
On display for the students to touch and pray with was what the archdiocese described as the “Official Relic of the Postulation of Blessed John Paul II” — a vile of the late pontiff’s blood.
“It is wonderful and a privilege to see the relics of Pope John Paul II,” said Keanu, who added his family turned out at St. Mary’s Cathedral in downtown Miami the previous day to see the relics there as part of a 10-parish tour of the relics scheduled in Miami.
In the Catholic Church, relics fall into one of three categories: A first-class relic is the physical bodily remains of a saint or blessed like bones, blood and hair; a second-class relic is a personal possession, such as clothing, devotional objects, handwritten letters or even furniture; and a third-class relic is an object that has touched a first-class relic.
Not by works lest any should boast, helps clear things up
It does: we are saved by grace of Christ alone and that we cannot earn by any works. Catholic doctrine.
it does speak of "churches" in plural?
Yes, they are local churches. Same as today. There is no condoning of divisions into denominations in the scripture. Care to prove me wrong on that?
meaning in original usage ~universal~ Church
Right. It is still the meaning: the Church that has no doctrinal, geographical or historical theological distinctions.
nowhere was it stipulated that all must unilaterally submit to one particular Apostle
That can be argued either way, but certainly the power to "bind and loose" belongs not to the Pope alone but to all the bishops acting in communion with him and one another. What these passages do preclude though is denominations: when two or more incompatible doctrines bind some people but not other. It is also notworthy that no similar passage exists where the Hoyl Scripture would be given such "binding and loosing" role.
Generally, understand that the argument here is not about papacy but about the Catholic Church as a whole. That the Eastern Orthodox have a different view on the papacy does not disqualify them as theologically Catholic. The Orthodox view on the relative roles of the Church and the Scripture and the faith and works is identical to ours and is entirely correct.
The length of a post is usually in inverse proportion to its meaningful content.
I agree. Goofy answers only show disrespect and don’t deserve any further drains on our time. Those who have hardened hearts will only come around to the truth when the Holy Spirit softens them. Our responsibility is to keep on presenting the truth with respect.
How is sinlessness of Mary ignoring the Beatitudes? Indeed we teach that her sinlessness is absolute; but the point remains that romans 3 cannot be taken literally in general, and neither that "all" in the middle of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.