Fears

Yes, that is the official teaching of the church. No one tries to hide that. And what if she is? Catholics admit that she depends on Christ for her salvation to. If it was not for God's grace Mary could have not lived sinless.

That's what I've been told anyway...

"With God all things are possible"

[DELETED LINK]

[ July 22, 2003, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: webmaster ]

 

Umm....that was the issue I was addressing. John denied that they teach that she was sinless her whole life. You switched the subject as to whether she was or not. My initial response was as to whether they teach that or not. Two different subjects.

God Bless You,
Neal

 

My bad. When these things get this long I have a hard time keeping everything straight, especially with all the threads on Catholicism right now.

 

No problem! I completely understand.

In the Glorious Lord Jesus Christ,
Neal

 

Helen said: "The saddest thing to me, of all this, is that the Roman Catholic Church counts on the fact that their members DON'T know the Scriptures. I urge Catholics to read God's Word for themselves. There are three legs supporting Roman Catholicism: ignorance, money, and fear. Take any one of those away and the Roman Catholic church will totter and fall."

Helen, I challenge you to sign up at Phatmass.com or The Coming Home Network and find out just how much Catholics don't know anything about scripture. Then I challenge you to read a book by Adams or Hahn. There doctrinal evidence is fuller and more well thought out than any Baptist scholar I have yet read. Never once do they have to say "well the Bible doesn't actually mean this even though it says it". Scholars such as Scottfield and MacArthur both do.

But I'm still hoping and waiting that there are Baptist answers that don't have to flat out ignore scripture or aren't full of holes for OSAS and Sole Fida.

 

Agh! The posts are drowning me, too much has happened since THIS MORNING.
Adam, I think we were done anyhow, right? If I owe you any answers pm the questions or ask again elsewhere, I'm catching the next lifeboat outta here.
Gina

 

Brother Adam:

With regard to Mary, the larger issue is whether the Catholic Church's elevation of Mary is consistent with what is taught in scripture. No one would argue the fact that Mary was a faithful servant of God and was obedient in a unique and special way. The Catholic Church, however, goes far beyond what is written in scripture.

Look, for example, at Paragraph 2677 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (speaking about the "Hail Mary"):

You can also note in the Catechism that there is not even an attempt to cite scripture as the basis for the above quote. Do you find this to be consistent with what is taught in scripture?Does scripture ever instruct us to entrust ourselves to Mary?

God Bless!

Priscilla Ann

 

Brother Adam:

There is one thing I would encourage you to do. Get copies of the following:

• The Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

Brother Adam:

There is one thing I would encourage you to do. Get copies of the following:

-The Catechism of the Catholic Church
-The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
-The Handbook of Indulgences

Take these three sources and a Bible and see if Catholic teachings are consistent with scripture. Perhaps you will come to different conclusions than I did. (By the way, I did read Rome, Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.)

Good Luck to you, Brother Adam!

God Bless!

Priscilla Ann

 

Adam, not one of the Catholics I know has ever read the Bible. That tells me a lot.

I do know a number of Catholics, by the way...

In contrast, I have read the testimonies of a number of ex-Catholics who say that they were never encouraged to read the Bible for themselves, but only to read those verses in the devotionals which were then "explained" to them.

The average Catholic depends on the Roman Catholic church to save him or her, along with the rites and good works done by the participant. Their idea of believing in Jesus is usually to simply acknowledge the truth of His existence.

It's a lot, lot different than a personal relationship with the living Lord and being born again.

 

The idea is that, if Mary had original sin, and concieved a son, the original sin would be passed to the son. But Jesus was without original sin, and did not sin in his lifetime.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the Roman Catholic thought. What I'm saying is that it's not explicitly against biblical doctrine.

 

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

 

Adam and Helen, I know a lot of Catholics, and nearly every one of them reads and studies the Bible daily.

 

Hi Priscilla Ann,

I have a great deal of Catholic literature including what you suggested. It's ALOT of reading and I haven't even finished the catachism yet.

Thank you,
Bro. Adam

 

My initial post really wasn't about whether you agree or disagree with what they teach. It was concerning what is really taught by the RCC. You said they did not believe Mary never sinned. So I showed you what one of their leading apologists thought and then Priscilla Ann pointed out that it is taught in the Catechism. But anyway, if it is taught that Mary never sinned then how does that square with Romans 3:23? Adam seemed to hint that all does not mean all; what do you think? Romans 3:23 seems fairly explicit to me.

In Christ,
Neal

[ July 22, 2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

I'm not ready to accept the Catholic position on Mary's sinlessness either, but a quick googling provided these two interesting reads (especially the first one):
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ135.HTM
http://members.aol.com/johnprh/all.html

 

But us Catholics agree with Protestants on the universality of sin, with just the one lone exception of Mary among created human beings. That's not too incredible or implausible or unthinkable to imagine God doing, is it? To make sure that one solitary created person was kept from sin? And that because she was the Theotokos, the God-bearer? Newman said that it is far less difficult to hold that Mary was freed from original and actual sin than it is to accept the proposition that all men are subject to original sin. The real mystery is why God would allow the latter to happen, not that He willed to restore His Son's earthly mother to a state which - but for original sin - would have characterized every one of us

You know, that I think about it. If someone was running in the middle of the street claiming that some guy claimed to be God and was raising the dead, I would think 1) the guy running in the street is a fruitcake or 2) the other guy is possessed by satan.

Some things seem increadibly far fetched to us, but the question is- do they have a plausible explaination? And if they do- should we be interested as Christians in finding out so we can say "this is absolutely anti-biblical" or "actually, yes, this is a possibility"?

 

I've heard this before, it doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

If this theory is correct then surely Mary's mother must also have been without original sin because it would have been passed on to Mary. If Mary's mother was without orignal sin then her mother must have been without original sin etc. etc and before you know it you are back to Eve. Am I missing something?

 

I don't know that I fear Catholicism. Or catholics.

I think many are dying and going to hell because of their wrong beliefs.

But then, there are Baptists who are dying and going to hell, too. For their wrong beliefs.