Zone1 Catholics (real ones) do NOT go against Scripture or add to it. It's a lie.

[surada]

You can read what He said. Cut to the chase, where are you trying to go with this?

I think it's a really dumb arguement.

 

[Meriweather]

From what did she need saving?

It was by the grace of God she was saved from sinning.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Since you raised the topic, I mistakenly thought you might be interested in what my studies taught me

Actually you injected yourself into a post between gtopa1 and myself and started questioning my remarks. Refer to posts #336 and #337. And as I told you earlier, I know your opinions. We have been down this road with Mary before, but you persisted.
It frustrates you that I ask for scriptural confirmation of your "studies", and you can't offer it. It pisses you off so you just double down with more Catholic dogma.
Another here considers herself an expert because she had read the Bible, and studied the church. I suggested she should have done that in reverse. Studied the Bible and read the history of the church. Maybe it wouldn't hurt for you to do the same. You rely heavily on Catholicism, and rarely on scripture.

I am not throwing digs at Mary, but at the men who have a vision or a dream and create a sub religion from it. Or kids saying they saw an apparition. That reminds me of the Salem witch hunts. Those kids saw witches and flopped around on the floor as if the were possessed.

Mary is wonderful. What she endured that night and at the foot of that cross is hard to fathom. Like it or not, the redemptrix and advocate and mediatrix mess, all comes from your ancient fathers, who don't even agree among themselves.

 

[The Irish Ram]

It was by the grace of God she was saved from sinning.

Pre-saved? And where does that school of supposition come from? Can you refer me to the scripture that affirms it?

I can refer you to the scripture that repudiates it:

Ecclesiastes 7:20 Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins.

 

[Meriweather]

Actually you injected yourself into a post between gtopa1 and myself

Got it. You raised the topic for only you and gtopa1. In the future I'll remember that I am not invited into any topic you raise.

 

[hadit]

She said she did. She said to Elizabeth that her spirit rejoices in God, her Savior.

Which means she was a sinner, like all of us.

 

[hadit]

It was by the grace of God she was saved from sinning.

I think we both realize that is not a Biblical, but a Church traditional, understanding.

 

[Meriweather]

Which means she was a sinner, like all of us.

Not if God saved her from the first sin, which is Catholic belief and verified by Mary herself, at Lourdes, about 1800 years later. But as the Lourdes events isn't Biblical, perhaps your denominations dismisses this?

 

[Meriweather]

I think we both realize that is not a Biblical, but a Church traditional, understanding.

Because it is Biblical, it is the Catholic understanding--and was from Apostolic times. It was also verified in later times, but as that was to a young Catholic, non-Catholics don't pay it much--f any--attention.

 

[hadit]

Not if God saved her from the first sin, which is Catholic belief and verified by Mary herself, at Lourdes, about 1800 years later. But as the Lourdes events isn't Biblical, perhaps your denominations dismisses this?

That requires you to define the word "savior" as one who prevents another from falling into sin (in this circumstance), instead of as one who pulls another out of sin. The problem, however, remains that you are insisting that Mary, a NON-divine human, was able to remain sinless her entire life. That means that she was kept from sin WITHOUT Yeshua's sacrifice, something that Yeshua Himself BEGGED the Father to find, because becoming sin for all mankind was too much for Him to bear. That means there was indeed another way for man to be justified and He didn't have to die on the cross. If God simply prevented man from sinning, there would be no need for sacrifice, and you know what that means. There would be no forbidden fruit in the Garden, no fall of mankind, no suffering and no sin, because God just wouldn't allow it to happen. That's not, however, how God set it up. He made it so we HAD TO CHOOSE to follow Him or not. You're saying that Mary had NO choice, that she was prevented from ever falling into sin at all, never had to repent, never had to choose to follow God. That does not compute.

That is a big, big problem for me and is why I do not accept the idea that Mary was perfect and sinless.

 

[Meriweather]

That requires you to define the word "savior" as one who prevents another from falling into sin (in this circumstance), instead of as one who pulls another out of sin. The problem, however, remains that you are insisting that Mary, a NON-divine human, was able to remain sinless her entire life. That means that she was kept from sin WITHOUT Yeshua's sacrifice, something that Yeshua Himself BEGGED the Father to find, because becoming sin for all mankind was too much for Him to bear. That means there was indeed another way for man to be justified and He didn't have to die on the cross. If God simply prevented man from sinning, there would be no need for sacrifice, and you know what that means. There would be no forbidden fruit in the Garden, no fall of mankind, no suffering and no sin, because God just wouldn't allow it to happen. That's not, however, how God set it up. He made it so we HAD TO CHOOSE to follow Him or not. You're saying that Mary had NO choice, that she was prevented from ever falling into sin at all, never had to repent, never had to choose to follow God. That does not compute.

That is a big, big problem for me and is why I do not accept the idea that Mary was perfect and sinless.

So don't worry about it. Listen, I understand that when Protestants separated in the fifteenth century, they decided to just use the Bible and interpret it for themselves (many via the King James English).

Remember, Catholics and Orthodox, with the Latin and Greek languages, were simply closer to the original languages used. Then, Catholic and Orthodox also kept with both the Bible (made Canon in the third century) and Oral, Apostolic traditions from the first century. All these were passed on by the Apostles to the next generation of priests and bishops and so on to this day.

Luke's Gospel notes that Mary was filled with grace, and the early Church, either because of Luke's testimony or other oral traditions, taught that Mary was without sin.

Catholics follow these teachings and feel no need to argue against these oral teachings and traditions. Personally, I don't see any other denomination's need to come up with a reason, let alone an argument, for simply saying, "I don't believe that." You don't need a reason for your beliefs (or non-beliefs) about Mary any more than I need a reason for not bowing to Mecca five times a day.

All I ask that when someone reports Catholic teachings, they report correctly. The journalist in me will come out in me every time when anyone comes up with what the Catholic Church "really" teaches or what they say Catholics "really" believe based on what they saw/heard someone(s) say. Some will even claim the Church is for pedophilia because some Catholics have been convicted of that.

Anyway, I have no problem with what you or anyone else believes about Mary, about any of the Apostles, or even about individual Catholics. I do have a problem when someone misstates what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Got it. You raised the topic for only you and gtopa1. In the future I'll remember that I am not invited into any topic you raise.

You are invited to any topic here, mine included. No one here, that I know of, has an aversion to Catholics. There are those who dispute Catholic doctrine, as well as other church's doctrine, but I hope that doesn't prevent you from adding your viewpoint. You and I have posted here for along time with no problems between us until misery decided to bring out the Catholic hammer and condemn every one else to hell. I believe that scourge is over, and I hope we can all debate religious ideas with out bringing personal insults into the conversion.

 

[ninja007]

From what did she need saving?

sin.

 

[JustAGuy1]

What is a "real" Catholic?

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

I trust the Bible is not wrong where it is said all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). Jesus came and was the Savior for all to come to, Mary needed the Savior too. This does not mean she was a great sinner, she was favored, but all need Jesus the Savior. Is there the same understanding of grace in the Catholic Church as in Christianity generally?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I trust the Bible is not wrong where it is said all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). Jesus came and was the Savior for all to come to, Mary needed the Savior too. This does not mean she was a great sinner, she was favored, but all need Jesus the Savior. Is there the same understanding of grace in the Catholic Church as in Christianity generally?

Catholics believe Mary was sinless

 

[rstrats]

I follow my Lord and his Word.

That isn't an answer to surada's question.

 

[Meriweather]

I trust the Bible is not wrong where it is said all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). Jesus came and was the Savior for all to come to, Mary needed the Savior too. This does not mean she was a great sinner, she was favored, but all need Jesus the Savior. Is there the same understanding of grace in the Catholic Church as in Christianity generally?

It appears it is the Catholic Church trusts both the power of God's grace and scripture (Luke 1:28) where the angel says Mary is filled with grace. When you are filled with grace, will you still sin? Do you believe sin can still overpower God's grace when one is filled with it? Scripture refers to Jesus as the new Adam. In the same way (read John's Gospel), Jesus addresses Mary as 'woman', just as Eve is called 'woman'. Adam and Eve chose sin; Mary and Jesus chose obedience....the new Adam; the new Eve. Early on in her pregnancy, Mary proclaimed God as Savior. Do you believe Jesus, our Savior, is/always has been, one with God, but overlooked saving Mary?

I have never understood the determination to label Mary a sinner.

 

[Woodznutz]

I have never understood the determination to label Mary a sinner.

Probably to counter the argument that she was always sinless. That "all have sinned..." certainly includes Mary.

 

[hadit]

It appears it is the Catholic Church trusts both the power of God's grace and scripture (Luke 1:28) where the angel says Mary is filled with grace. When you are filled with grace, will you still sin?

Adam and Eve were perfectly sinless and walked with God, yet they sinned. Christians filled with the Holy Spirit still are tempted and fall into sin. Why do you hold Mary as being so far above and beyond mere mortals when we see this?

Do you believe sin can still overpower God's grace when one is filled with it?

We all have choice. Sin does not overpower anything. You choose to believe Mary simply chose not to sin. That means Jesus' sacrifice was unnecessary for her and she would have stood before God, pure and holy on her own efforts.

Scripture refers to Jesus as the new Adam. In the same way (read John's Gospel), Jesus addresses Mary as 'woman', just as Eve is called 'woman'. Adam and Eve chose sin; Mary and Jesus chose obedience....the new Adam; the new Eve.

It is not Biblically sustained that Mary chose complete and total obedience her entire life. That is your belief, and I know you will not deviate from it. That is your prerogative, but I am urging you to avoid placing more emphasis on church tradition than on Scripture itself.

Early on in her pregnancy, Mary proclaimed God as Savior. Do you believe Jesus, our Savior, is/always has been, one with God, but overlooked saving Mary?

According to your belief, He did not have to save her. Literally, if she was sinless, she could have stood before God, holy and righteous in her own efforts. Jesus did not have to die for her sin. The ONLY reason she would need a savior at all is if she was a sinful creature like all of us.

I have never understood the determination to label Mary a sinner.

It is because to label her as sinless is to fly in the face of Scripture that says we are all in need of a savior. To say Mary was sinless is to deny her proclamation that God was her savior because a sinless being needs no savior. How can you maintain that contradiction?