curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So what exactly does your Mom-God do that "enhanced the lives" of RC's?

---

Enhanced their faith. This isn't hard.

---

More than the Holy Spirit?

Hmmm.

---

Who can say exactly and in what measure? How did you come to salvation? Just the Holy Spirit, the influence of others, a combination?

---

As someone said, it's not hard. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Counsel, so while various people can be good to know, and sometimes examples of servant leadership and the family of Christ, our faith comes from God and not from men.

If long history and Tradition mattered the most, we should all be Jewish.

Perhaps you should check your pride

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If earlier councils need to be corrected by later ones, then clearly the Church is not infallible. He clearly says that Scripture IS infallible. This is pretty much a textbook affirmation of sola scriptura.

---

This is another misunderstanding what the nature of the councils. He was addressing the differences between regional and ecumenical councils.

But let's say he wasn't for the sake of the argument.

You have a misunderstanding of the nature of these councils. Not EVERYTHING proclaimed at a council is infallible. Only matters of faith and morals that are definitively intended to be held by the entire Church.

Secondarily, a difference exists between dogma and discipline. Disciplinary decisions like liturgical norms (using Latin or common vernacular at mass) or disciplinary practices (priestly celibacy) can change. Other dogmatic items (the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, hypostatic union, the two wills of Christ, etc.) are dogmas that CANNOT change.

---

If not everything proclaimed in a council is infallible, then the council isn't infallible. Picking and choosing what is infallible completely destroys your argument. If the men in those councils can fail in one area, they certainly can fail in any other. You have absolutely no basis for your picking and choosing. And Augustine said nothing about infallibility of Church councils with regard to faith and morals, or dogma vs. discipline.

---

That's like saying that if any SCOTUS opinion contains dicta, the Court has no authority to decide an issue.

---

It's not saying that at all. It's not about authority, it's about infallibility.

---

They are the same thing. You misunderstand infallibility because you attribute it to men. But the Church's authority to teach infallibly comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. It doesn't mean the bishops are perfect or that everything they say is correct.

---

Jesus never promised that his church would always teach infallibly. One only has to look at the errant ways of the churches that Paul started, and Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation as just two examples. What Jesus did promise was that his church would not be overtaken and defeated by the Devil. And it has not been. Jesus didn't say that his Church would never go astray and never need reform. Protestantism was that reform, a return to true biblical Christianity, the true Christianity that had been severely distorted and compromised, having been led astray by the whims of man.

I showed you direct quotes where Roman Catholicism teaches that MARY is the way to salvation - do you, Sam Lowry, HONESTLY believe that is Christianity? Do you honestly not see the utter blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry there? Do you HONESTLY believe that such a thing could be the product of an infallible teaching office?

---

.... she was perfected in holiness by grace in order to live a sinless life (which Augustine also believed).

---

perhaps you didn't read those quotes from earlier:

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 47)

"ONE ALONE is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 57)

"For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth.." (Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25)


Is this going to be YET ANOTHER instance of you guys denying facts that are right in front of your face?

---

I read them. What kind of sin do you think he's talking about?

---

Oh boy, here we go. Let the usual twisting/dodging/semantic double talk begin.

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator.."

---

Augustine clarified this just a few years later in his Retractions:

Quote:

---

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the aforementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin while they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? ... I put it to you, whether, on having such a question submitted to them, however excellent might have been their sanctity in this body, they would not have exclaimed with one voice: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?

---

It's also important to note the distinction between original and actual sin. Augustine believed Mary was conceived with original sin (the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not being well defined in his time). By overcoming sin in every particular, he means remaining free from actual sin.

Mark 7:8-9 KJV
[8] For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. [9] And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If earlier councils need to be corrected by later ones, then clearly the Church is not infallible. He clearly says that Scripture IS infallible. This is pretty much a textbook affirmation of sola scriptura.

---

This is another misunderstanding what the nature of the councils. He was addressing the differences between regional and ecumenical councils.

But let's say he wasn't for the sake of the argument.

You have a misunderstanding of the nature of these councils. Not EVERYTHING proclaimed at a council is infallible. Only matters of faith and morals that are definitively intended to be held by the entire Church.

Secondarily, a difference exists between dogma and discipline. Disciplinary decisions like liturgical norms (using Latin or common vernacular at mass) or disciplinary practices (priestly celibacy) can change. Other dogmatic items (the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, hypostatic union, the two wills of Christ, etc.) are dogmas that CANNOT change.

---

If not everything proclaimed in a council is infallible, then the council isn't infallible. Picking and choosing what is infallible completely destroys your argument. If the men in those councils can fail in one area, they certainly can fail in any other. You have absolutely no basis for your picking and choosing. And Augustine said nothing about infallibility of Church councils with regard to faith and morals, or dogma vs. discipline.

---

That's like saying that if any SCOTUS opinion contains dicta, the Court has no authority to decide an issue.

---

It's not saying that at all. It's not about authority, it's about infallibility.

---

They are the same thing. You misunderstand infallibility because you attribute it to men. But the Church's authority to teach infallibly comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. It doesn't mean the bishops are perfect or that everything they say is correct.

---

Jesus never promised that his church would always teach infallibly. One only has to look at the errant ways of the churches that Paul started, and Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation as just two examples. What Jesus did promise was that his church would not be overtaken and defeated by the Devil. And it has not been. Jesus didn't say that his Church would never go astray and never need reform. Protestantism was that reform, a return to true biblical Christianity, the true Christianity that had been severely distorted and compromised, having been led astray by the whims of man.

I showed you direct quotes where Roman Catholicism teaches that MARY is the way to salvation - do you, Sam Lowry, HONESTLY believe that is Christianity? Do you honestly not see the utter blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry there? Do you HONESTLY believe that such a thing could be the product of an infallible teaching office?

---

.... she was perfected in holiness by grace in order to live a sinless life (which Augustine also believed).

---

perhaps you didn't read those quotes from earlier:

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 47)

"ONE ALONE is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 57)

"For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth.." (Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25)


Is this going to be YET ANOTHER instance of you guys denying facts that are right in front of your face?

---

I read them. What kind of sin do you think he's talking about?

---

Oh boy, here we go. Let the usual twisting/dodging/semantic double talk begin.

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator.."

---

Augustine clarified this just a few years later in his Retractions:

Quote:

---

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the aforementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin while they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? ... I put it to you, whether, on having such a question submitted to them, however excellent might have been their sanctity in this body, they would not have exclaimed with one voice: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?

---

It's also important to note the distinction between original and actual sin. Augustine believed Mary was conceived with original sin (the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not being well defined in his time). By overcoming sin in every particular, he means remaining free from actual sin.

---

That quote is not from Augustine's Retractions. It's from On Nature and Grace, Migne PL 44:267.

Augustine is not asserting Mary's actual sinlessness in that quote. He is leaving it open to question, leaving the possibility, not wanting to make any specific declaration out of "honor to the Lord". What he does acknowledge there is Jesus' grace to Mary for "overcoming" sin, which is not saying that she never actually sinned.

Moreover, two years after he wrote that quote in On Nature and Grace, he wrote this:

"For if no soul is propagated from another, while all souls are enclosed in flesh descended from sinful flesh, how much less credible is it that His soul could have come by propagation from a sinful woman, whereas his flesh came from a vrigin and was not conceived in lust, that He might be 'in the likeness of sinful flesh', not in sinful flesh!"

... and at the end of his life in his Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian:

"...For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption...."


Regardless, it is clear, as you acknowledge, that Augustine believed Mary had original sin - which is to say Augustine did NOT believe Mary was sinless. Which, I might add, is a belief your Church requires upon pain of anathema.

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So what exactly does your Mom-God do that "enhanced the lives" of RC's?

---

Enhanced their faith. This isn't hard.

---

More than the Holy Spirit?

Hmmm.

---

Who can say exactly and in what measure? How did you come to salvation? Just the Holy Spirit, the influence of others, a combination?

---

As someone said, it's not hard. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Counsel, so while various people can be good to know, and sometimes examples of servant leadership and the family of Christ, our faith comes from God and not from men.

---

So you had no influences other than the Holy Spirit that pointed you towards salvation?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an offical document.

---

You have been exposed for imposing YOUR beliefs on what the Chruch teaches. The Church cannot censure ever prayer provided.

Once again, the Church does not officially teach what you say.

What you are doing is committing the sin of Calumny. Please apologize and repent.

---

I've imposed NOTHING about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I've given full, reasoned arguments and citations. You are foolishly limiting the concept of "teaching" to merely what's written in your official documents. Any rational, intellectually honest person KNOWS this is complete BS. You "teach" by what your leaders (even popes) say and do, and by your fully sanctioned and endorsed marian prayers. It's sad how dishonest you have to be to protect your Church from all the facts I'm presenting.

---

As ever, you confuse your opinions with facts. Same old same old. Carry on.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an offical document.

---

You have been exposed for imposing YOUR beliefs on what the Chruch teaches. The Church cannot censure ever prayer provided.

Once again, the Church does not officially teach what you say.

What you are doing is committing the sin of Calumny. Please apologize and repent.

---

I've imposed NOTHING about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I've given full, reasoned arguments and citations. You are foolishly limiting the concept of "teaching" to merely what's written in your official documents. Any rational, intellectually honest person KNOWS this is complete BS. You "teach" by what your leaders (even popes) say and do, and by your fully sanctioned and endorsed marian prayers. It's sad how dishonest you have to be to protect your Church from all the facts I'm presenting.

---

As ever, you confuse your opinions with facts. Same old same old. Carry on.

---

And as ever, you confuse vitriol with actual, substantive arguments. You contribute nothing but hate, and you're only embarassing yourself. Move along and let those who actually want to engage in debate do so without having to hear your relentless clanging, empty vessel.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an offical document.

---

You have been exposed for imposing YOUR beliefs on what the Chruch teaches. The Church cannot censure ever prayer provided.

Once again, the Church does not officially teach what you say.

What you are doing is committing the sin of Calumny. Please apologize and repent.

---

I've imposed NOTHING about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I've given full, reasoned arguments and citations. You are foolishly limiting the concept of "teaching" to merely what's written in your official documents. Any rational, intellectually honest person KNOWS this is complete BS. You "teach" by what your leaders (even popes) say and do, and by your fully sanctioned and endorsed marian prayers. It's sad how dishonest you have to be to protect your Church from all the facts I'm presenting.

---

As ever, you confuse your opinions with facts. Same old same old. Carry on.

---

And as ever, you confuse vitriol with actual, substantive arguments. You contribute nothing but hate, and you're only embarassing yourself. Move along and let those who actually want to engage in debate do so without having to hear your relentless clanging, empty vessel.

---

You don't "engage in debate". You pontificate (irony intended) and commit straw man after straw man while spewing the same vitriol you condemn. Still hyper hypocritical and blind in your arrogance. I'll continue clanging until you wake up to the error of your ways. You're welcome.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If earlier councils need to be corrected by later ones, then clearly the Church is not infallible. He clearly says that Scripture IS infallible. This is pretty much a textbook affirmation of sola scriptura.

---

This is another misunderstanding what the nature of the councils. He was addressing the differences between regional and ecumenical councils.

But let's say he wasn't for the sake of the argument.

You have a misunderstanding of the nature of these councils. Not EVERYTHING proclaimed at a council is infallible. Only matters of faith and morals that are definitively intended to be held by the entire Church.

Secondarily, a difference exists between dogma and discipline. Disciplinary decisions like liturgical norms (using Latin or common vernacular at mass) or disciplinary practices (priestly celibacy) can change. Other dogmatic items (the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, hypostatic union, the two wills of Christ, etc.) are dogmas that CANNOT change.

---

If not everything proclaimed in a council is infallible, then the council isn't infallible. Picking and choosing what is infallible completely destroys your argument. If the men in those councils can fail in one area, they certainly can fail in any other. You have absolutely no basis for your picking and choosing. And Augustine said nothing about infallibility of Church councils with regard to faith and morals, or dogma vs. discipline.

---

That's like saying that if any SCOTUS opinion contains dicta, the Court has no authority to decide an issue.

---

It's not saying that at all. It's not about authority, it's about infallibility.

---

They are the same thing. You misunderstand infallibility because you attribute it to men. But the Church's authority to teach infallibly comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. It doesn't mean the bishops are perfect or that everything they say is correct.

---

Jesus never promised that his church would always teach infallibly. One only has to look at the errant ways of the churches that Paul started, and Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation as just two examples. What Jesus did promise was that his church would not be overtaken and defeated by the Devil. And it has not been. Jesus didn't say that his Church would never go astray and never need reform. Protestantism was that reform, a return to true biblical Christianity, the true Christianity that had been severely distorted and compromised, having been led astray by the whims of man.

I showed you direct quotes where Roman Catholicism teaches that MARY is the way to salvation - do you, Sam Lowry, HONESTLY believe that is Christianity? Do you honestly not see the utter blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry there? Do you HONESTLY believe that such a thing could be the product of an infallible teaching office?

---

.... she was perfected in holiness by grace in order to live a sinless life (which Augustine also believed).

---

perhaps you didn't read those quotes from earlier:

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 47)

"ONE ALONE is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 57)

"For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth.." (Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25)


Is this going to be YET ANOTHER instance of you guys denying facts that are right in front of your face?

---

I read them. What kind of sin do you think he's talking about?

---

Oh boy, here we go. Let the usual twisting/dodging/semantic double talk begin.

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator.."

---

Augustine clarified this just a few years later in his Retractions:

Quote:

---

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the aforementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin while they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? ... I put it to you, whether, on having such a question submitted to them, however excellent might have been their sanctity in this body, they would not have exclaimed with one voice: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?

---

It's also important to note the distinction between original and actual sin. Augustine believed Mary was conceived with original sin (the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not being well defined in his time). By overcoming sin in every particular, he means remaining free from actual sin.

---

That quote is not from Augustine's Retractions. It's from On Nature and Grace, Migne PL 44:267.

Augustine is not asserting Mary's actual sinlessness in that quote. He is leaving it open to question, leaving the possibility, not wanting to make any specific declaration out of "honor to the Lord". What he does acknowledge there is Jesus' grace to Mary for "overcoming" sin, which is not saying that she never actually sinned.

Moreover, two years after he wrote that quote in On Nature and Grace, he wrote this:

"For if no soul is propagated from another, while all souls are enclosed in flesh descended from sinful flesh, how much less credible is it that His soul could have come by propagation from a sinful woman, whereas his flesh came from a vrigin and was not conceived in lust, that He might be 'in the likeness of sinful flesh', not in sinful flesh!"

... and at the end of his life in his Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian:

"...For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption...."


Regardless, it is clear, as you acknowledge, that Augustine believed Mary had original sin - which is to say Augustine did NOT believe Mary was sinless. Which, I might add, is a belief your Church requires upon pain of anathema.

---

Both the passages you cite are referring to original sin. "Overcoming sin" can only mean living a sinless life since that is the specific question he's answering in this context.

It is fair to say he deferred to tradition, even while doing some speculating, as the dogma was not yet clearly defined. He certainly would not have rejected it once it was formally declared, as we know from his discussion of Church authority. And of course there's no lack of patristic writings in support of it.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an offical document.

---

You have been exposed for imposing YOUR beliefs on what the Chruch teaches. The Church cannot censure ever prayer provided.

Once again, the Church does not officially teach what you say.

What you are doing is committing the sin of Calumny. Please apologize and repent.

---

I've imposed NOTHING about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I've given full, reasoned arguments and citations. You are foolishly limiting the concept of "teaching" to merely what's written in your official documents. Any rational, intellectually honest person KNOWS this is complete BS. You "teach" by what your leaders (even popes) say and do, and by your fully sanctioned and endorsed marian prayers. It's sad how dishonest you have to be to protect your Church from all the facts I'm presenting.

---

As ever, you confuse your opinions with facts. Same old same old. Carry on.

---

And as ever, you confuse vitriol with actual, substantive arguments. You contribute nothing but hate, and you're only embarassing yourself. Move along and let those who actually want to engage in debate do so without having to hear your relentless clanging, empty vessel.

---

You don't "engage in debate". You pontificate (irony intended) and commit straw man after straw man while spewing the same vitriol you condemn. Still hyper hypocritical and blind in your arrogance. I'll continue clanging until you wake up to the error of your ways. You're welcome.

---

Repeat: "You confuse your vitriol with actual, substantive arguments".

You just don't have anything. Nothing. Never. No argument against anything I've said, just personal attacks.

If you want to engage in anything I've said substantively, then I'm all game. If you're just going to continue clanging, then go away.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If earlier councils need to be corrected by later ones, then clearly the Church is not infallible. He clearly says that Scripture IS infallible. This is pretty much a textbook affirmation of sola scriptura.

---

This is another misunderstanding what the nature of the councils. He was addressing the differences between regional and ecumenical councils.

But let's say he wasn't for the sake of the argument.

You have a misunderstanding of the nature of these councils. Not EVERYTHING proclaimed at a council is infallible. Only matters of faith and morals that are definitively intended to be held by the entire Church.

Secondarily, a difference exists between dogma and discipline. Disciplinary decisions like liturgical norms (using Latin or common vernacular at mass) or disciplinary practices (priestly celibacy) can change. Other dogmatic items (the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, hypostatic union, the two wills of Christ, etc.) are dogmas that CANNOT change.

---

If not everything proclaimed in a council is infallible, then the council isn't infallible. Picking and choosing what is infallible completely destroys your argument. If the men in those councils can fail in one area, they certainly can fail in any other. You have absolutely no basis for your picking and choosing. And Augustine said nothing about infallibility of Church councils with regard to faith and morals, or dogma vs. discipline.

---

That's like saying that if any SCOTUS opinion contains dicta, the Court has no authority to decide an issue.

---

It's not saying that at all. It's not about authority, it's about infallibility.

---

They are the same thing. You misunderstand infallibility because you attribute it to men. But the Church's authority to teach infallibly comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. It doesn't mean the bishops are perfect or that everything they say is correct.

---

Jesus never promised that his church would always teach infallibly. One only has to look at the errant ways of the churches that Paul started, and Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation as just two examples. What Jesus did promise was that his church would not be overtaken and defeated by the Devil. And it has not been. Jesus didn't say that his Church would never go astray and never need reform. Protestantism was that reform, a return to true biblical Christianity, the true Christianity that had been severely distorted and compromised, having been led astray by the whims of man.

I showed you direct quotes where Roman Catholicism teaches that MARY is the way to salvation - do you, Sam Lowry, HONESTLY believe that is Christianity? Do you honestly not see the utter blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry there? Do you HONESTLY believe that such a thing could be the product of an infallible teaching office?

---

.... she was perfected in holiness by grace in order to live a sinless life (which Augustine also believed).

---

perhaps you didn't read those quotes from earlier:

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 47)

"ONE ALONE is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 57)

"For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth.." (Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25)


Is this going to be YET ANOTHER instance of you guys denying facts that are right in front of your face?

---

I read them. What kind of sin do you think he's talking about?

---

Oh boy, here we go. Let the usual twisting/dodging/semantic double talk begin.

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator.."

---

Augustine clarified this just a few years later in his Retractions:

Quote:

---

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the aforementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin while they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? ... I put it to you, whether, on having such a question submitted to them, however excellent might have been their sanctity in this body, they would not have exclaimed with one voice: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?

---

It's also important to note the distinction between original and actual sin. Augustine believed Mary was conceived with original sin (the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not being well defined in his time). By overcoming sin in every particular, he means remaining free from actual sin.

---

That quote is not from Augustine's Retractions. It's from On Nature and Grace, Migne PL 44:267.

Augustine is not asserting Mary's actual sinlessness in that quote. He is leaving it open to question, leaving the possibility, not wanting to make any specific declaration out of "honor to the Lord". What he does acknowledge there is Jesus' grace to Mary for "overcoming" sin, which is not saying that she never actually sinned.

Moreover, two years after he wrote that quote in On Nature and Grace, he wrote this:

"For if no soul is propagated from another, while all souls are enclosed in flesh descended from sinful flesh, how much less credible is it that His soul could have come by propagation from a sinful woman, whereas his flesh came from a vrigin and was not conceived in lust, that He might be 'in the likeness of sinful flesh', not in sinful flesh!"

... and at the end of his life in his Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian:

"...For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption...."


Regardless, it is clear, as you acknowledge, that Augustine believed Mary had original sin - which is to say Augustine did NOT believe Mary was sinless. Which, I might add, is a belief your Church requires upon pain of anathema.

---

Both the passages you cite are referring to original sin. "Overcoming sin" can only mean living a sinless life since that is the specific question he's answering in this context.

It is fair to say he deferred to tradition, even while doing some speculating, as the dogma was not yet clearly defined. He certainly would not have rejected it once it was formally declared, as we know from his discussion of Church authority. And of course there's no lack of patristic writings in support of it.

---

No, "overcoming" sin does not have to mean one has never commited sin. It can mean to ultimately defeat it one's life after years struggling with it. Again, Augustine wasn't making any declarations about Mary's status with sin, he clearly stopped short from doing it.

Here's the bottom line: Augustine made no direct, explicit declarations of Mary's sinlessness (that I know of). He did, however, make direct, explicit declarations that JESUS was the only one who was sinless in those quotes provided.

"Dogma not clearly defined" - you mean accretion of error. We know his discussion of Church authority, and we know his stance on Scripture being the "highest authority we must follow" and the only inerrant source, while the Church was liable to err in its teaching, interpretation, and application. There are plenty of patristic writers who believed Mary sinned. This is where the Roman Catholic picking and choosing begins.

And another bottom line: Augustine, believing that Mary inherited original sin, evidently did NOT believe in Mary's sinlessness. Therefore my original statement still stands as correct.

Quote:

---

No, "overcoming" sin does not have to mean one has never commited sin. It can mean to ultimately defeat it one's life after years struggling with it. Again, Augustine wasn't making any declarations about Mary's status with sin, he clearly stopped short from doing it.

---

It can mean that, but in this case he's talking about saints living sinless lives.

Quote:

---

Here's the bottom line: Augustine made no direct, explicit declarations of Mary's sinlessness (that I know of). He did, however, make direct, explicit declarations that JESUS was the only one who was sinless in those quotes provided.

---

And he expressly excepted Mary from those declarations.

Quote:

---

"Dogma not clearly defined" - you mean accretion of error. We know his discussion of Church authority, and we know his stance on Scripture being the "highest authority we must follow" and the only inerrant source, while the Church was liable to err in its teaching, interpretation, and application. There are plenty of patristic writers who believed Mary sinned. This is where the Roman Catholic picking and choosing begins.

---

He does not consider Scripture to be the only inerrant source. He and other writers can err. The Church, when acting in its infallible teaching capacity, cannot.

Quote:

---

And another bottom line: Augustine, believing that Mary inherited original sin, evidently did NOT believe in Mary's sinlessness. Therefore my original statement still stands as correct.

---

I don't remember what your original statement was. My point was that Mary is called "all holy" because she received the grace to live without sin in this life (as we all hope to do in the next). Being free from original sin is also part of it, as Augustine would surely have understood with the benefit of the Church's instruction.

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So what exactly does your Mom-God do that "enhanced the lives" of RC's?

---

Enhanced their faith. This isn't hard.

---

More than the Holy Spirit?

Hmmm.

---

Who can say exactly and in what measure? How did you come to salvation? Just the Holy Spirit, the influence of others, a combination?

---

As someone said, it's not hard. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Counsel, so while various people can be good to know, and sometimes examples of servant leadership and the family of Christ, our faith comes from God and not from men.

---

So you had no influences other than the Holy Spirit that pointed you towards salvation?

---

Father, Son, Holy Ghost. That has always been sufficient and adding any other person is very much blasphemous.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

No, "overcoming" sin does not have to mean one has never commited sin. It can mean to ultimately defeat it one's life after years struggling with it. Again, Augustine wasn't making any declarations about Mary's status with sin, he clearly stopped short from doing it.

---

It can mean that, but in this case he's talking about saints living sinless lives.==> And he stops short of explicitly declaring Mary lived a sinless life.

Quote:

---

Here's the bottom line: Augustine made no direct, explicit declarations of Mary's sinlessness (that I know of). He did, however, make direct, explicit declarations that JESUS was the only one who was sinless in those quotes provided.

---

And he expressly excepted Mary from those declarations. ==> no, he only excepted Mary from the question.

Quote:

---

"Dogma not clearly defined" - you mean accretion of error. We know his discussion of Church authority, and we know his stance on Scripture being the "highest authority we must follow" and the only inerrant source, while the Church was liable to err in its teaching, interpretation, and application. There are plenty of patristic writers who believed Mary sinned. This is where the Roman Catholic picking and choosing begins.

---

He does not consider Scripture to be the only inerrant source. He and other writers can err. The Church, when acting in its infallible teaching capacity, cannot. ==> except you just don't have his statement stating such. He says nothing about an "infallible teaching capacity". In fact he says the opposite.

Quote:

---

And another bottom line: Augustine, believing that Mary inherited original sin, evidently did NOT believe in Mary's sinlessness. Therefore my original statement still stands as correct.

---

I don't remember what your original statement was. My point was that Mary is called "all holy" because she received the grace to live without sin in this life (as we all hope to do in the next). Being free from original sin is also part of it, as Augustine would surely have understood with the benefit of the Church's instruction. ==> the original argument was that Augustine did NOT believe Mary was sinless.

Do you honestly, honestly NOT see the issue of calling a created human being THE ALL HOLY ONE??

Do you even realize WHO the ALL HOLY ONE is?? And you think its okay for any of us to be raised to that same level??

Simply astounding. Just... no words.

---

Responses above in bold.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

No, "overcoming" sin does not have to mean one has never commited sin. It can mean to ultimately defeat it one's life after years struggling with it. Again, Augustine wasn't making any declarations about Mary's status with sin, he clearly stopped short from doing it.

---

It can mean that, but in this case he's talking about saints living sinless lives.==> And he stops short of explicitly declaring Mary lived a sinless life.

Quote:

---

Here's the bottom line: Augustine made no direct, explicit declarations of Mary's sinlessness (that I know of). He did, however, make direct, explicit declarations that JESUS was the only one who was sinless in those quotes provided.

---

And he expressly excepted Mary from those declarations. ==> no, he only excepted Mary from the question.

Quote:

---

"Dogma not clearly defined" - you mean accretion of error. We know his discussion of Church authority, and we know his stance on Scripture being the "highest authority we must follow" and the only inerrant source, while the Church was liable to err in its teaching, interpretation, and application. There are plenty of patristic writers who believed Mary sinned. This is where the Roman Catholic picking and choosing begins.

---

He does not consider Scripture to be the only inerrant source. He and other writers can err. The Church, when acting in its infallible teaching capacity, cannot. ==> except you just don't have his statement stating such. He says nothing about an "infallible teaching capacity". In fact he says the opposite.

Quote:

---

And another bottom line: Augustine, believing that Mary inherited original sin, evidently did NOT believe in Mary's sinlessness. Therefore my original statement still stands as correct.

---

I don't remember what your original statement was. My point was that Mary is called "all holy" because she received the grace to live without sin in this life (as we all hope to do in the next). Being free from original sin is also part of it, as Augustine would surely have understood with the benefit of the Church's instruction. ==> the original argument was that Augustine did NOT believe Mary was sinless.

Do you honestly, honestly NOT see the issue of calling a created human being THE ALL HOLY ONE??

Do you even realize WHO the ALL HOLY ONE is?? And you think its okay for any of us to be raised to that same level??

Simply astounding. Just... no words.

---

Responses above in bold.

---

The Bible declares that only God is holy. Yet it also commands us to be holy because God is so. How do you resolve this biblical double-talk?

The answer is that only God is inherently holy. He is the source of all holiness, including Mary's. It's not that difficult.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

No, "overcoming" sin does not have to mean one has never commited sin. It can mean to ultimately defeat it one's life after years struggling with it. Again, Augustine wasn't making any declarations about Mary's status with sin, he clearly stopped short from doing it.

---

It can mean that, but in this case he's talking about saints living sinless lives.==> And he stops short of explicitly declaring Mary lived a sinless life.

Quote:

---

Here's the bottom line: Augustine made no direct, explicit declarations of Mary's sinlessness (that I know of). He did, however, make direct, explicit declarations that JESUS was the only one who was sinless in those quotes provided.

---

And he expressly excepted Mary from those declarations. ==> no, he only excepted Mary from the question.

Quote:

---

"Dogma not clearly defined" - you mean accretion of error. We know his discussion of Church authority, and we know his stance on Scripture being the "highest authority we must follow" and the only inerrant source, while the Church was liable to err in its teaching, interpretation, and application. There are plenty of patristic writers who believed Mary sinned. This is where the Roman Catholic picking and choosing begins.

---

He does not consider Scripture to be the only inerrant source. He and other writers can err. The Church, when acting in its infallible teaching capacity, cannot. ==> except you just don't have his statement stating such. He says nothing about an "infallible teaching capacity". In fact he says the opposite.

Quote:

---

And another bottom line: Augustine, believing that Mary inherited original sin, evidently did NOT believe in Mary's sinlessness. Therefore my original statement still stands as correct.

---

I don't remember what your original statement was. My point was that Mary is called "all holy" because she received the grace to live without sin in this life (as we all hope to do in the next). Being free from original sin is also part of it, as Augustine would surely have understood with the benefit of the Church's instruction. ==> the original argument was that Augustine did NOT believe Mary was sinless.

Do you honestly, honestly NOT see the issue of calling a created human being THE ALL HOLY ONE??

Do you even realize WHO the ALL HOLY ONE is?? And you think its okay for any of us to be raised to that same level??

Simply astounding. Just... no words.

---

Responses above in bold.

---

The Bible declares that only God is holy. Yet it also commands us to be holy because God is so. How do you resolve this biblical double-talk?

The answer is that only God is inherently holy. He is the source of all holiness, including Mary's. It's not that difficult.

---

Do you TRULY not understand the difference between being called "holy" and being called "THE ALL HOLY ONE"??

Simply astonishing. Simply unbelievable.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

No, "overcoming" sin does not have to mean one has never commited sin. It can mean to ultimately defeat it one's life after years struggling with it. Again, Augustine wasn't making any declarations about Mary's status with sin, he clearly stopped short from doing it.

---

It can mean that, but in this case he's talking about saints living sinless lives.==> And he stops short of explicitly declaring Mary lived a sinless life.

Quote:

---

Here's the bottom line: Augustine made no direct, explicit declarations of Mary's sinlessness (that I know of). He did, however, make direct, explicit declarations that JESUS was the only one who was sinless in those quotes provided.

---

And he expressly excepted Mary from those declarations. ==> no, he only excepted Mary from the question.

Quote:

---

"Dogma not clearly defined" - you mean accretion of error. We know his discussion of Church authority, and we know his stance on Scripture being the "highest authority we must follow" and the only inerrant source, while the Church was liable to err in its teaching, interpretation, and application. There are plenty of patristic writers who believed Mary sinned. This is where the Roman Catholic picking and choosing begins.

---

He does not consider Scripture to be the only inerrant source. He and other writers can err. The Church, when acting in its infallible teaching capacity, cannot. ==> except you just don't have his statement stating such. He says nothing about an "infallible teaching capacity". In fact he says the opposite.

Quote:

---

And another bottom line: Augustine, believing that Mary inherited original sin, evidently did NOT believe in Mary's sinlessness. Therefore my original statement still stands as correct.

---

I don't remember what your original statement was. My point was that Mary is called "all holy" because she received the grace to live without sin in this life (as we all hope to do in the next). Being free from original sin is also part of it, as Augustine would surely have understood with the benefit of the Church's instruction. ==> the original argument was that Augustine did NOT believe Mary was sinless.

Do you honestly, honestly NOT see the issue of calling a created human being THE ALL HOLY ONE??

Do you even realize WHO the ALL HOLY ONE is?? And you think its okay for any of us to be raised to that same level??

Simply astounding. Just... no words.

---

Responses above in bold.

---

The Bible declares that only God is holy. Yet it also commands us to be holy because God is so. How do you resolve this biblical double-talk?

The answer is that only God is inherently holy. He is the source of all holiness, including Mary's. It's not that difficult.

---

Do you TRULY not understand the difference between being called "holy" and being called "THE ALL HOLY ONE"??

Simply astonishing. Simply unbelievable.

---

What is the difference as you understand it?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

No, "overcoming" sin does not have to mean one has never commited sin. It can mean to ultimately defeat it one's life after years struggling with it. Again, Augustine wasn't making any declarations about Mary's status with sin, he clearly stopped short from doing it.

---

It can mean that, but in this case he's talking about saints living sinless lives.==> And he stops short of explicitly declaring Mary lived a sinless life.

Quote:

---

Here's the bottom line: Augustine made no direct, explicit declarations of Mary's sinlessness (that I know of). He did, however, make direct, explicit declarations that JESUS was the only one who was sinless in those quotes provided.

---

And he expressly excepted Mary from those declarations. ==> no, he only excepted Mary from the question.

Quote:

---

"Dogma not clearly defined" - you mean accretion of error. We know his discussion of Church authority, and we know his stance on Scripture being the "highest authority we must follow" and the only inerrant source, while the Church was liable to err in its teaching, interpretation, and application. There are plenty of patristic writers who believed Mary sinned. This is where the Roman Catholic picking and choosing begins.

---

He does not consider Scripture to be the only inerrant source. He and other writers can err. The Church, when acting in its infallible teaching capacity, cannot. ==> except you just don't have his statement stating such. He says nothing about an "infallible teaching capacity". In fact he says the opposite.

Quote:

---

And another bottom line: Augustine, believing that Mary inherited original sin, evidently did NOT believe in Mary's sinlessness. Therefore my original statement still stands as correct.

---

I don't remember what your original statement was. My point was that Mary is called "all holy" because she received the grace to live without sin in this life (as we all hope to do in the next). Being free from original sin is also part of it, as Augustine would surely have understood with the benefit of the Church's instruction. ==> the original argument was that Augustine did NOT believe Mary was sinless.

Do you honestly, honestly NOT see the issue of calling a created human being THE ALL HOLY ONE??

Do you even realize WHO the ALL HOLY ONE is?? And you think its okay for any of us to be raised to that same level??

Simply astounding. Just... no words.

---

Responses above in bold.

---

The Bible declares that only God is holy. Yet it also commands us to be holy because God is so. How do you resolve this biblical double-talk?

The answer is that only God is inherently holy. He is the source of all holiness, including Mary's. It's not that difficult.

---

Do you TRULY not understand the difference between being called "holy" and being called "THE ALL HOLY ONE"??

Simply astonishing. Simply unbelievable.

---

What is the difference as you understand it?

---

Oh, good God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Quote:

---

No, "overcoming" sin does not have to mean one has never commited sin. It can mean to ultimately defeat it one's life after years struggling with it. Again, Augustine wasn't making any declarations about Mary's status with sin, he clearly stopped short from doing it.

---

It can mean that, but in this case he's talking about saints living sinless lives.==> And he stops short of explicitly declaring Mary lived a sinless life.

Quote:

---

Here's the bottom line: Augustine made no direct, explicit declarations of Mary's sinlessness (that I know of). He did, however, make direct, explicit declarations that JESUS was the only one who was sinless in those quotes provided.

---

And he expressly excepted Mary from those declarations. ==> no, he only excepted Mary from the question.

Quote:

---

"Dogma not clearly defined" - you mean accretion of error. We know his discussion of Church authority, and we know his stance on Scripture being the "highest authority we must follow" and the only inerrant source, while the Church was liable to err in its teaching, interpretation, and application. There are plenty of patristic writers who believed Mary sinned. This is where the Roman Catholic picking and choosing begins.

---

He does not consider Scripture to be the only inerrant source. He and other writers can err. The Church, when acting in its infallible teaching capacity, cannot. ==> except you just don't have his statement stating such. He says nothing about an "infallible teaching capacity". In fact he says the opposite.

Quote:

---

And another bottom line: Augustine, believing that Mary inherited original sin, evidently did NOT believe in Mary's sinlessness. Therefore my original statement still stands as correct.

---

I don't remember what your original statement was. My point was that Mary is called "all holy" because she received the grace to live without sin in this life (as we all hope to do in the next). Being free from original sin is also part of it, as Augustine would surely have understood with the benefit of the Church's instruction. ==> the original argument was that Augustine did NOT believe Mary was sinless.

Do you honestly, honestly NOT see the issue of calling a created human being THE ALL HOLY ONE??

Do you even realize WHO the ALL HOLY ONE is?? And you think its okay for any of us to be raised to that same level??

Simply astounding. Just... no words.

---

Responses above in bold.

---

The Bible declares that only God is holy. Yet it also commands us to be holy because God is so. How do you resolve this biblical double-talk?

The answer is that only God is inherently holy. He is the source of all holiness, including Mary's. It's not that difficult.

---

Do you TRULY not understand the difference between being called "holy" and being called "THE ALL HOLY ONE"??

Simply astonishing. Simply unbelievable.

---

What is the difference as you understand it?

---

Oh, good God.

---

I'm gonna put it to you and to all Roman Catholics plain: if you truly can't see the problem in calling a created human being THE ALL HOLY ONE, and in saying that person is necessary for your salvation, and in making images of that person and bowing down and praying to it... then you aren't a Christian, and you aren't saved. You're only fooling yourself, and your Church is fooling you. I really hope you guys open your eyes and wake up, before it's too late.

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So what exactly does your Mom-God do that "enhanced the lives" of RC's?

---

Enhanced their faith. This isn't hard.

---

More than the Holy Spirit?

Hmmm.

---

Who can say exactly and in what measure? How did you come to salvation? Just the Holy Spirit, the influence of others, a combination?

---

As someone said, it's not hard. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Counsel, so while various people can be good to know, and sometimes examples of servant leadership and the family of Christ, our faith comes from God and not from men.

---

So you had no influences other than the Holy Spirit that pointed you towards salvation?

---

Father, Son, Holy Ghost. That has always been sufficient and adding any other person is very much blasphemous.

---

Agreed. The Bible is clear that we are to worship no one but God. That includes Mary, Joseph, the Apostles, Saints....we ONLY worship and pray to God Himself. That should be a no brainer.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So what exactly does your Mom-God do that "enhanced the lives" of RC's?

---

Enhanced their faith. This isn't hard.

---

More than the Holy Spirit?

Hmmm.

---

Who can say exactly and in what measure? How did you come to salvation? Just the Holy Spirit, the influence of others, a combination?

---

As someone said, it's not hard. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Counsel, so while various people can be good to know, and sometimes examples of servant leadership and the family of Christ, our faith comes from God and not from men.

---

So you had no influences other than the Holy Spirit that pointed you towards salvation?

---

Father, Son, Holy Ghost. That has always been sufficient and adding any other person is very much blasphemous.

---

Agreed. The Bible is clear that we are to worship no one but God. That includes Mary, Joseph, the Apostles, Saints....we ONLY worship and pray to God Himself. That should be a no brainer.

---

Youre mostly correct with one error

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So what exactly does your Mom-God do that "enhanced the lives" of RC's?

---

Enhanced their faith. This isn't hard.

---

More than the Holy Spirit?

Hmmm.

---

Who can say exactly and in what measure? How did you come to salvation? Just the Holy Spirit, the influence of others, a combination?

---

As someone said, it's not hard. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Counsel, so while various people can be good to know, and sometimes examples of servant leadership and the family of Christ, our faith comes from God and not from men.

---

So you had no influences other than the Holy Spirit that pointed you towards salvation?

---

Father, Son, Holy Ghost. That has always been sufficient and adding any other person is very much blasphemous.

---

Agreed. The Bible is clear that we are to worship no one but God. That includes Mary, Joseph, the Apostles, Saints....we ONLY worship and pray to God Himself. That should be a no brainer.

---

Youre mostly correct with one error

---

And what would that be?

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So what exactly does your Mom-God do that "enhanced the lives" of RC's?

---

Enhanced their faith. This isn't hard.

---

More than the Holy Spirit?

Hmmm.

---

Who can say exactly and in what measure? How did you come to salvation? Just the Holy Spirit, the influence of others, a combination?

---

As someone said, it's not hard. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Counsel, so while various people can be good to know, and sometimes examples of servant leadership and the family of Christ, our faith comes from God and not from men.

---

So you had no influences other than the Holy Spirit that pointed you towards salvation?

---

Father, Son, Holy Ghost. That has always been sufficient and adding any other person is very much blasphemous.

---

Agreed. The Bible is clear that we are to worship no one but God. That includes Mary, Joseph, the Apostles, Saints....we ONLY worship and pray to God Himself. That should be a no brainer.

---

Youre mostly correct with one error

---

What error are you referring to?

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're still arguing a fallacy.

And no one is saying he got EVERYTHING ELSE wrong. You're presenting it that way to promote your fallacy.

---

No, you are trying to wriggle out with by using misrepresenting the parlance of my use of "EVERYTHING".

I'll rephrase it (and omit Mary's sinlessness - which I really don't need to)):

How did he believe in MAJOR Catholic beliefs like the Real Presence and Apostolic Succession, and the Deuterocanon as canon, if he believed in Sola Scriptura?

How do so many reputable protestant scholars NOT believe that Augustine espoused Sola Scriptura the way that protestants proclaim it?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And Protestantism is the return to the one true church founded by Jesus, the Church having accrued so many errors.

---

NOPE. IF that were the case, the Jesus would have either lied or erred in Matthew 16:18.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Learn what ad hominem means (and how it's spelled). If that's an ad hominem, then so is your charge of calumny.

---

ad hominem - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

This is exactly what you did.

You called me a Marian idolator. That is an attack (and a falsehood).

Next you attacked my spelling error. Please note that I have NEVER commented on the spelling errors that you type so as to keep the conversation moving along. I will continue to respond WITHOUT pointing out your (or other's) spelling or grammatical errors. It brings nothing of value to the table.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Evasion, and more than a smattering of dishonest arrogance.

Yes, the Roman Catholics ARE one of many denominations in the Christian Church.

Beyond that, I will say no more for now, because I perceive Pride would take the conversation to unhealthy places.

---

Once again, please cite an authentic historical reference, Google, Bing, Wiki, source that states that the Catholic Church was NOT founded by Jesus Christ in AD 33.

When was your church founded and by whom? Please cite the reference material that supports your claim.


Oldbear83 if my posts are viewed as arrogant, then I certainly apologize. That is NOT my intention. I am simply asking for clarification on your posts because they often use generalities rather than specifics. I find it hard to discuss what's obscure to me.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Augustine did NOT believe in Mary's sinlessness. He clearly believed only Jesus was sinless:

"...there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 47)

"ONE ALONE is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins." (On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Ch 57)

"For among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus was absolutely the only one who did not experience the contagion of earthly corruption because of the new manner of his immaculate birth.." (Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, Book I:66, Part 1, Vol. 25)

---

Actually, he did believe in her sinlessness -

"We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear him who undoubtedly had no sin."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Augustine did believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, because that's how he interpreted Ezekiel chapter 44.

So none of this goes against his belief in sola scriptura at all; in fact it's perfectly consistent with it.

---

So why don't you believe in the perpetual virginity? He has the same NT as you. He was also friends with Jerome, who translated the NT into Latin AND who ALSO believed the into Perpetual Virginity of Mary in his vigorous defense in Against Helvidius. How did they "get it wrong?"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, scripture is NOT open to ANY interpretation when you have the Holy Spirit as a guide.

---

Who has the Holy Spirit when a Lutheran and Baptist argues about baptismal regeneration?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the fact that your Church teaches that Mary is the way to salvation shows it most certainly is not infallible, to say the least. At least to any rational, honest person not steeped in the Devil's deception.

---

Please cite the official Magisterial document that states that "Mary is the way to salvation."

---

It does not have to be in an official document for it to be "taught" by your Church. But your Magisterium lets all these prayers and statements that state such go through, without ever correcting them. That is tacit approval, and that's no different than having it written in an offical document.

---

You have been exposed for imposing YOUR beliefs on what the Chruch teaches. The Church cannot censure ever prayer provided.

Once again, the Church does not officially teach what you say.

What you are doing is committing the sin of Calumny. Please apologize and repent.

---

I've imposed NOTHING about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I've given full, reasoned arguments and citations. You are foolishly limiting the concept of "teaching" to merely what's written in your official documents. Any rational, intellectually honest person KNOWS this is complete BS. You "teach" by what your leaders (even popes) say and do, and by your fully sanctioned and endorsed marian prayers. It's sad how dishonest you have to be to protect your Church from all the facts I'm presenting.

---

As ever, you confuse your opinions with facts. Same old same old. Carry on.

---

And as ever, you confuse vitriol with actual, substantive arguments. You contribute nothing but hate, and you're only embarassing yourself. Move along and let those who actually want to engage in debate do so without having to hear your relentless clanging, empty vessel.

---

You don't "engage in debate". You pontificate (irony intended) and commit straw man after straw man while spewing the same vitriol you condemn. Still hyper hypocritical and blind in your arrogance. I'll continue clanging until you wake up to the error of your ways. You're welcome.

---

Repeat: "You confuse your vitriol with actual, substantive arguments".

You just don't have anything. Nothing. Never. No argument against anything I've said, just personal attacks.

If you want to engage in anything I've said substantively, then I'm all game. If you're just going to continue clanging, then go away.

---

It pleases me that you are so easily triggered every single time that I "clang". We can always count on you to show your true colors. Why don't you run along back home to your daddy, the Father of Lies?

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So what exactly does your Mom-God do that "enhanced the lives" of RC's?

---

Enhanced their faith. This isn't hard.

---

More than the Holy Spirit?

Hmmm.

---

Who can say exactly and in what measure? How did you come to salvation? Just the Holy Spirit, the influence of others, a combination?

---

As someone said, it's not hard. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Counsel, so while various people can be good to know, and sometimes examples of servant leadership and the family of Christ, our faith comes from God and not from men.

---

So you had no influences other than the Holy Spirit that pointed you towards salvation?

---

Father, Son, Holy Ghost. That has always been sufficient and adding any other person is very much blasphemous.

---

Non sequitur to the point which is we have all had influences in our lives that aided us on the path to salvation. Salvation doesn't occur in a vacuum.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're still arguing a fallacy.

And no one is saying he got EVERYTHING ELSE wrong. You're presenting it that way to promote your fallacy.

---

No, you are trying to wriggle out with by using misrepresenting the parlance of my use of "EVERYTHING".

I'll rephrase it (and omit Mary's sinlessness - which I really don't need to)):

How did he believe in MAJOR Catholic beliefs like the Real Presence and Apostolic Succession, and the Deuterocanon as canon, if he believed in Sola Scriptura?

How do so many reputable protestant scholars NOT believe that Augustine espoused Sola Scriptura the way that protestants proclaim it?

---

You're STILL getting the concept of sola scriptura WRONG. And you're still arguing a fallacy. You're just not smart enough to know it. That's the frustrating part.

Augustine could have believed in the real presence, apostolic succession, and any other "major Catholic beliefs" because he believed them to be taught in Scripture. Even if he was wrong in his interpretation (which he himself admits he is liable to be), he's still following what he believes Scripture says. Sola scriptura doesn't mean you get every interpretation right, it just means that Scripture is the only infallible authority and thus, is the "highest authority that we must follow." (Confessions, 12.19)

And EVEN IF Augustine held those beliefs because of Roman Catholic tradition that's outside of Scripture - STILL, this does NOT go against sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura does NOT mean you can NOT believe in what Church tradition tells you to believe. It does NOT mean that you can't submit yourself to any other authority besides Scripture. Sola scriptura simply means that these other beliefs from tradition and other authorities are NOT infallible like Scripture, and therefore Scripture is the "highest authority" and thus all other traditions and authorities must always be measured and corrected against infallible Scripture. Whether one is always correctly or successfully doing this is beside the point. As Augustine directly states, NOTHING he says should be taken as truth, only Scripture should be (On the Trinity, Book 3).

Augustine CLEARLY makes statements to support the view of sola scriptura. You have to be either in deep denial to not see this, or you're just not intelligent. And you don't have any statements of his to the contrary, statements that say Church authority and teaching have the same infallibility as Scripture. That's the bottom line. To make up for this huge hole, you're denying what he clearly said and trying to put words in his mouth, and you're repeatedly arguing fallacies. And you're STILL not understanding what sola scriptura really means.

...no answer to my question?