Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

The idea that Mary was sinless, for whatever reason, simply isn't Biblical. There is no scriptural support for this position.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

Perhaps not. But there's no scriptural support for sola scriptura, either.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

The idea that Mary was sinless, for whatever reason, simply isn't Biblical. There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

What the RC church gets wrong about Mary is immaculate conception. She was not guilty of personal sins by Grace, but did need salvation from Christ. She wasn't exempt from the fallen human condition.

This is what the early church taught.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

Perhaps not. But there's no scriptural support for sola scriptura, either.

---

Of course there is.

Jesus told his apostles that they would remember everything that he said and did (John 14:26). This is the only instance we know of where Jesus gave men the authority to teach his word infallibly.

And everything that we know came from the apostles is contained in what?

In Scripture. Hence, sola scriptura.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

The idea that Mary was sinless, for whatever reason, simply isn't Biblical. There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

What the RC church gets wrong about Mary is immaculate conception. She was not guilty of personal sins by Grace, but did need salvation from Christ. She wasn't exempt from the fallen human condition.

This is what the early church taught.

---

No, the early church did teach that Mary was guilty of personal sin too:

Origen (185-253 AD): "Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal, when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if 'all have sinned, and lack God's glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed' (Rom 3:23) then Mary too was scandalized at that time."

Basil (330-379 AD) writes about the "sword piercing Mary's heart" and says the "sword" is doubt about Jesus. Roman Catholic theologian John Henry Newman says this about Basil's statement: "St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt."

John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) writes about Mary being selfishly ambitious at the wedding in Cana - "She desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more consipicuous, perhaps too she had some human feelings, like his brethren, when they said 'show thyself to the world', desiring to gain credit for his miracles." He goes on to say "she claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct him in all things, when she ouhg to thave reverenced and worshiped him." He then calls Mary's requirest of her Son a the wedding in Cana "the disease of vainglory".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

Perhaps not. But there's no scriptural support for sola scriptura, either.

---

Of course there is.

Jesus told his apostles that they would remember everything that he said and did (John 14:26). This is the only instance we know of where Jesus gave men the authority to teach his word infallibly.

And everything that we know came from the apostles is contained in what?

In Scripture. Hence, sola scriptura.

---

Come on. First, it doesn't even say what you are claiming it says. Second, if you have to use "hence" to do the heavy lifting, it is not in fact in scripture, but an inference or informed conclusion you are drawing from you're reading. Please don't gas light us and just be honest about the obvious.

We know from John that he performed other signs not written down and if everything Jesus did were written, not enough books in the world to contain such an account.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

Perhaps not. But there's no scriptural support for sola scriptura, either.

---

Of course there is.

Jesus told his apostles that they would remember everything that he said and did (John 14:26). This is the only instance we know of where Jesus gave men the authority to teach his word infallibly.

And everything that we know came from the apostles is contained in what?

In Scripture. Hence, sola scriptura.

---

Come on. First, it doesn't even say what you are claiming it says. Second, if you have to use "hence" to do the heavy lifting, it is not in fact in scripture, but an inference or informed conclusion you are drawing from you're reading. Please don't gas light us and just be honest about the obvious.

We know from John that he performed other signs not written down and if everything Jesus did were written, not enough books in the world to contain such an account.

---

The claim was NOT that it wasn't in scripture, but that it didn't have scriptural support. "Hence" is perfectly valid here. Please don't try to argue logic with me. You were so terrible at it last time and it was exasperating. And it's showing again here. Take for instance your argument that not everything Jesus did was written - this does NOTHING to invalidate sola scriptura. Sola scriptura does not say that everything Jesus said and did is in Scripture - it's saying that everything that we have in our possession today that we know came from the apostles, and hence from Jesus, is ONLY IN SCRIPTURE and nowhere else.

If you disagree that this is the case, then please provide us with a tradition that we know came from the apostles that is NOT IN SCRIPTURE.

Please understand what sola scriptura is before you argue against it. I'm too tired to have to keep straightening people out on it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

The idea that Mary was sinless, for whatever reason, simply isn't Biblical. There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

What the RC church gets wrong about Mary is immaculate conception. She was not guilty of personal sins by Grace, but did need salvation from Christ. She wasn't exempt from the fallen human condition.

This is what the early church taught.

---

No, the early church did teach that Mary was guilty of personal sin too:

Origen (185-253 AD): "Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal, when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if 'all have sinned, and lack God's glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed' (Rom 3:23) then Mary too was scandalized at that time."

Basil (330-379 AD) writes about the "sword piercing Mary's heart" and says the "sword" is doubt about Jesus. Roman Catholic theologian John Henry Newman says this about Basil's statement: "St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt."

John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) writes about Mary being selfishly ambitious at the wedding in Cana - "She desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more consipicuous, perhaps too she had some human feelings, like his brethren, when they said 'show thyself to the world', desiring to gain credit for his miracles." He goes on to say "she claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct him in all things, when she ouhg to thave reverenced and worshiped him." He then calls Mary's requirest of her Son a the wedding in Cana "the disease of vainglory".

---

Origen is describing Mary being shaken emotionally at the crucifixion, not accusing her of moral sin, but acknowledging that she suffered and struggled. Origen is also not considered doctrinally authoritative.

With Basil, the sword is understood by nearly all early Fathers as sorrow and anguish, not sinful doubt and unbelief.

Mary may have been tempted, but Chrysostom didn't say she consented to it or acted sinfully. Christ himself was tempted. Temptation doesn't imply moral guilt. Chrysostom never denies Mary's title 'Panagia'.

Everything you've cited describes temptation and suffering, not moral transgression.

I don't think Mary is your underlying issue, its that Protestant's (especially after Calvin) teach that human nature is so corrupted by the fall that a person cannot meaningfully cooperate with Grace. That's actually my biggest concern and why I'm in no man's land currently: I want to transform myself and sin as little as possible. My current Protestant church doesn't have a toolbox for stopping sin. They don't have regular fasting, prayer rules and serious ascetism: in the short time I've practices these things, I've been able to stop habitual sin and addiction.

It is Good news if Mary was able to withstand sin by her extreme closeness to Jesus. That means we can radically transform ourselves and sin less. Could you imagine being a virgin and giving birth to the Son of God and witnessing all these miracles in person...I promise you would sin much less than you currently do.

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ARBear13 gave a good answer, that Mary is the first and greatest evangelist. Her role as co-mediatrix and co-redeemer, if one chooses to use those terms, doesn't diminish Christ but points the way to him.

The idea is similar to what Paul says in Colossians 1:24 -- that he is grateful for his sufferings because they help complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Of course we know that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for our salvation. All that's lacking is evangelizing, which is what Paul refers to.

To that I would only add that Mary's role as evangelist didn't end with Christ's death and resurrection. The Church teaches that it continues until the end of time:

Quote:

---

This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator. (Lumen Gentium 62)

---

---

ArBear didn't give a good answer. He didn't answer me at all. He completely dodged the point, just as you are doing.

---

"All Christians can help 'save' others in a subordinate sense through evangelism by directing people to Jesus. The Apostle Paul said as much in 1 Corinthians 9:22. The Catholic Church believes that Mother Mary is the best possible evangelist because she loved Jesus more than anyone else, so she can bring people to salvation through her evangelical witness. That is the sense in which the word 'salvation' is used in all the scenarios you quoted."

---

There is no recorded evidence in scripture of Mary evangelizing to anyone. Now, we can probably assume it happened, but the idea that someone who no mention is made of evangelizing is somehow the "greatest' evangelist is reading something into the text that is simply not there.

---

What constitutes evangelization in your eyes?

---

Spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ, as Paul and the disciples did in scripture. That is the plain meaning of the word.

We see Mary described as a lot of things in scripture. Evangelist isn't one of them.

---

At the wedding feast in Cana she tells Jesus it is time to start his public ministry (an imposition he first resists). She tells the servants to do whatever they are told to with regard to the shortage of wine. She also plays a crucial role in the prophecy of a virgin birth from Isiah, which undoubtedly leads some people to believe. There is your "recorded in scripture" evangelization.

Outside of scripture, her miraculous appearances have led to countless conversions. Among the most important, her appearance in 1531 outside of present day Mexico, where she declares she wants a church built so that people may know her son, leads to one of the largest known mass conversion events. This directly leads the native Aztec population to finally stop their most violent cultural practices and brings them to Jesus.

---

While I love Christ's interaction with his mother at the wedding in Cana, as it implies she knows what he is capable of (and may have even seen it before), what you describe in paragraph 1 is not "recorded in scripture" evangelization under any reasonable interpretation of that term. Again, evangelism has a clearly understood meaning, and that's not what those verses describe in any way, shape or form.

Any alleged extra-scriptural "appearances" of Mary should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Quite frankly, they are not to be trusted. There simply is no scriptural support for the idea that an apparition of Mary appears to people on earth.

---

And yet hundreds of millions converted to
catholicism as a result

You do know the Scriptures were written before the 16 apparitions of Blessed Mother Mary correct?

Do you have any knowledge at all of Our Lady of Guadalupe? I can recommend a book. It may lead to your conversion. You wont be the first nor the last.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

The idea that Mary was sinless, for whatever reason, simply isn't Biblical. There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

What the RC church gets wrong about Mary is immaculate conception. She was not guilty of personal sins by Grace, but did need salvation from Christ. She wasn't exempt from the fallen human condition.

This is what the early church taught.

---

No, the early church did teach that Mary was guilty of personal sin too:

Origen (185-253 AD): "Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal, when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if 'all have sinned, and lack God's glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed' (Rom 3:23) then Mary too was scandalized at that time."

Basil (330-379 AD) writes about the "sword piercing Mary's heart" and says the "sword" is doubt about Jesus. Roman Catholic theologian John Henry Newman says this about Basil's statement: "St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt."

John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) writes about Mary being selfishly ambitious at the wedding in Cana - "She desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more consipicuous, perhaps too she had some human feelings, like his brethren, when they said 'show thyself to the world', desiring to gain credit for his miracles." He goes on to say "she claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct him in all things, when she ouhg to thave reverenced and worshiped him." He then calls Mary's requirest of her Son a the wedding in Cana "the disease of vainglory".

---

Origen is describing Mary being shaken emotionally at the crucifixion, not accusing her of moral sin, but acknowledging that she suffered and struggled. Origen is also not considered doctrinally authoritative.

With Basil, the sword is understood by nearly all early Fathers as sorrow and anguish, not sinful doubt and unbelief.

Mary may have been tempted, but Chrysostom didn't say she consented to it or acted sinfully. Christ himself was tempted. Temptation doesn't imply moral guilt. Chrysostom never denies Mary's title 'Panagia'.

Everything you've cited describes temptation and suffering, not moral transgression.

I don't think Mary is your underlying issue, its that Protestant's (especially after Calvin) teach that human nature is so corrupted by the fall that a person cannot meaningfully cooperate with Grace. That's actually my biggest concern and why I'm in no man's land currently: I want to transform myself and sin as little as possible. My current Protestant church doesn't have a toolbox for stopping sin. They don't have regular fasting, prayer rules and serious ascetism: in the short time I've practices these things, I've been able to stop habitual sin and addiction.

It is Good news if Mary was able to withstand sin by her extreme closeness to Jesus. That means we can radically transform ourselves and sin less. Could you imagine being a virgin and giving birth to the Son of God and witnessing all these miracles in person...I promise you would sin much less than you currently do.

---

Origen was clearly calling what Mary did a "sin", otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned the part about "all have sinned" (quoting Romans 3:23) and that Jesus died for her like he did the apostles.

"Origen is not doctinally authoritative" - SEE what I mean about having to pick and choose from the fathers??

Clearly, the historian John Henry Newman, a Roman Catholic, disagrees with you about Basil, saying that Basil considered it a "sin of doubt".

John Chrysostom is clearly saying that Mary had the sin of pride, i.e. vainglory.

I really don't know what you're reading. You're really trying hard to get around what they said. Why? Why not just be honest and accept what is true, instead of trying to justify yourself?

I admire your desire to sin less. We all need to be that way. But don't let your degree of sin be what you believe will determine your salvation. That would be rejecting the gospel.

ARbear13 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"

The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.

If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.

Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.

---

You are asking people to ignore the tsunami of evidence that belies your claim, as if a single, recent doctrinal statement from your church should be "good enough" to override all that. And we're just not seeing any honesty from you in acknowledging any of it. Rather, it's just the usual denial, excuse making, and obfuscations.

Arguing that your church only believes in Mary's "subordinate and derivative" role in mediation is highly disingenuous. CLEARLY, your church's idea of a "subordinate" role for Mary still has her as close to Jesus' as possible without going over; and your church CLEARLY teaches that Mary's mediation, though derivative to Jesus', is still NECESSARY for salvation. Not only is there absolutely NO basis in Scripture or in the early church for ANY of this, there's also none for Mary even having ANY mediator role at all to begin with. And to elevate her in such a way as to say she is necessary for salvation should be so plainly heretical and idolatrous to anyone who is a Christian, as no one with the Holy Spirit would be comfortable at all with even hinting at crediting anyone for this except Jesus alone. Your church's (as well as even your) inability/unwillingness to disavow such things as this (as well as a number of others) completely undermines the authenticity of the Vatican's recent doctrinal statement as well as your church's repeated insistence that you don't worship Mary, and that you never did.

Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.

---

Just because the Romans have more churches, shrines and altars named after & dedicated to Mary than they have to Jesus.... that doesn't mean that they worship her.
"We said we don't worship Mary! Why are you upset that we sing songs of praise & worship to her?!? Just because we pray to her, sing to her, and bring gifts to her image and her altar... that doesn't mean we worship her!! Just because multiple Popes have entrusted the church into her hands.... that doesn't mean anything!!"
How can anyone believe this nonsense?

---

Prayer is not inherently worship. The word literally means "to ask." The phrase "I pray thee" used to be common in English when asking a person to do something.

Praise is not inherently worship. Praising or complimenting someone for their great qualities is a normal and kind thing to do.

Singing about someone is not inherently worship. If it is, you've committed idolatry every time you sang a song about a particular person.

Giving gifts to someone is not inherently worship, even if the gift is in appreciation for something they have done for you.

There is NO altar to Mary in any Catholic church anywhere in the world. Altars are dedicated to God alone.

Popes have entrusted the Church to Mary so that she can lead its members to love her Son as fervently as she did. Wanting the Church to love Jesus more completely is hardly a bad thing.

Intent is critically important in these circumstances. Anyone who intended to worship Mary as any form of divinity has gone well beyond the bounds of what the Catholic Church allows.

The only action that is always a form of divine worship is sacrifice. The only sacrifice the Catholic Church recognizes as necessary or permissible is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary, of which the Mass is a re-presentation. This one sacrifice is offered exclusively to the Triune God and no one else.

---

Wife: "You're being unfaithful to me with another woman!"

Husband: "No, I'm not honey. Yes, I talk to her more than I talk to you, and ask her for things instead of asking you, but that's not being unfaithful. Yes, I heap lavish praise on her, more than I do you, but it's being kind to recognize someone for their great qualities, isn't it? Yes, I sing about her all day, but come on, I heard you singing about George Washington the other day, remember? Yes, I lavish her with money and gifts, but it's because I'm only being appreciative for all she's done for me. Yes, I think about her all day, more than I do you. Yes, I have pictures of her all over the house. Yes, I kiss those pictures before I go to bed at night. Yes, I go out on dates with her. Yes, I have sex with her. But she's not my wife, you are. So as long as I don't consider her my wife, then doing those things is not being unfaithful. Because doing all those things is still out of friendship - hyper-friendship! (hyper-dulia)

Wife: "But you call her your Co-Wife!"

Husband: "Honey, that doesn't mean that she is up to your level! It still means that she is subordinate and derivative to you. I always declare that YOU are my only wife, don't I? But I tell you what. Since you have so much confusion about that, I'll stop calling her that. Mind you, I'm still going to do all those other things.... but since I'm no longer going to call her my "Co-Wife", then you really have no cause to say that I'm unfaithful, okay?"

---

This has to be the worst straw man argument I've ever heard. You are bashing a caricature of the Church that exists only in your own mind. Anyone who focuses on Mary for her own sake is either ignorant of Catholic teaching or is intentionally disobeying it.

Unlike many Protestants, Catholics are not free to believe whatever they wish about any theological topic. For all that cultural Catholics often refuse to admit it, we have doctrines to which we must adhere.The Catholic Church explains, in painstaking detail, what it believes about the Blessed Virgin Mary and why it believes these things. Read them for yourself; they are in the Catechism on the Vatican website.

Of infinitely more importance, you should first read what the Catechism says about Jesus. It lays out Catholic belief in the supremacy and divinity of Christ in unmistakably clear terms.

---

It really isn't a caricature. It is exactly how you're trying to defend your church's marian practices and beliefs. You line item each belief or practice in question, and then try to convince everyone how individually, each belief and practice done for a certain person does not necessarily constitute worship of that person. Now, if you only did one or maybe even two things on that list to that person, then maybe you could convince some of us. But the problem, which amazingly you seem to be so blithely unaware of, is the fact that if you find yourself doing ALL of them to that person, it's quite likely that you ARE worshiping that person.

You just need to be honest with yourself and others, and stop trying to gaslight everyone like the husband in my scenario was doing. And that scenairio isn't only about what you're personally doing, it's also about what your Church does in defense of its Mariology as well. One or two instances of over-the-top language about Mary, then fine. But such language being suffuse, constant, and repetitive in your Church, even from your popes and Doctors of the Church?? Then you take us for complete fools.

---

The Catholic criticism of the evangelical Protestant position is the reverse of what you have accused us of doing: Protestants only venerate God and don't fully worship Him.

Because you lack the sacrifice of the Mass, you don't actually worship God in the way that He expects to be worshipped. Therefore, veneration looks like worship to you because you don't have any true, sacrificial worship.

The bread and wine of the Eucharist must be consecrated by a validly ordained priest in order to be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Before the Reformation, literally every group that claimed to be Christian -- Catholic/Orthodox, Arian, Montanist, etc. -- believed this from as far back as we have written Church accounts. The New Testament was written and compiled by Apostles who were doing exactly this, and there is precisely zero historical evidence to the contrary.

Sola Scriptura is such a problem because it separated Protestants from the living Tradition of the Church, causing various Protestant churches to try to reverse engineer the worship of the early Church by only using the Bible. But the Bible, while it is an extremely important part, is still only part of the overall Deposit of Faith. It was never meant to be understood outside of the larger Tradition or without the guidance of the institutional Church.

The Christian Church is decades older than the New Testament, therefore its distinctively Christian beliefs logically cannot have their ultimate source in the Biblical New Testament. Christian belief had to pre-exist the writing and compilation of the books of the New Testament. There was a Church hierarchy before their was a Bible, and according to the Bible itself in John 21:25 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, there were Christian practices and beliefs that were not written down.

I grew up in a devout, churchgoing Southern Baptist household. The rest of my family is still Baptist, and I still deeply appreciate the Christian upbringing they provided for me. That said, I knew that I could not remain Baptist or Protestant when I realized that Sola Scriptura did not make logical sense and could not possibly be true. My further investigations and prayer led me to join the Catholic Church, a decision that I have never once regretted.

---

Word

I can only imagine the strength of ones convictions it took to come to that objective conclusion and i can fully understand anyone even those in this thread who thus far have been incapable and stubbornly deny facts. Believing them is different and a next further step but people willfully denying words posed directly to them from the scriptura the Catholic Church assembled.

The mass, which is largely in its exact same form for 2000 years predates the Bible by centuries yet their corner stone is sola scriptura. They deny any tradition which is explicitly written. It is also written the works dine would fill all books of humanity yet they deny that. .

That fact which is indisputable is enough to give me pause and really ponder what Martin Luther created when he schismed.

Mothra said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"

The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.

If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.

Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.

---

You are asking people to ignore the tsunami of evidence that belies your claim, as if a single, recent doctrinal statement from your church should be "good enough" to override all that. And we're just not seeing any honesty from you in acknowledging any of it. Rather, it's just the usual denial, excuse making, and obfuscations.

Arguing that your church only believes in Mary's "subordinate and derivative" role in mediation is highly disingenuous. CLEARLY, your church's idea of a "subordinate" role for Mary still has her as close to Jesus' as possible without going over; and your church CLEARLY teaches that Mary's mediation, though derivative to Jesus', is still NECESSARY for salvation. Not only is there absolutely NO basis in Scripture or in the early church for ANY of this, there's also none for Mary even having ANY mediator role at all to begin with. And to elevate her in such a way as to say she is necessary for salvation should be so plainly heretical and idolatrous to anyone who is a Christian, as no one with the Holy Spirit would be comfortable at all with even hinting at crediting anyone for this except Jesus alone. Your church's (as well as even your) inability/unwillingness to disavow such things as this (as well as a number of others) completely undermines the authenticity of the Vatican's recent doctrinal statement as well as your church's repeated insistence that you don't worship Mary, and that you never did.

Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.

---

Just because the Romans have more churches, shrines and altars named after & dedicated to Mary than they have to Jesus.... that doesn't mean that they worship her.
"We said we don't worship Mary! Why are you upset that we sing songs of praise & worship to her?!? Just because we pray to her, sing to her, and bring gifts to her image and her altar... that doesn't mean we worship her!! Just because multiple Popes have entrusted the church into her hands.... that doesn't mean anything!!"
How can anyone believe this nonsense?

---

Prayer is not inherently worship. The word literally means "to ask." The phrase "I pray thee" used to be common in English when asking a person to do something.

Praise is not inherently worship. Praising or complimenting someone for their great qualities is a normal and kind thing to do.

Singing about someone is not inherently worship. If it is, you've committed idolatry every time you sang a song about a particular person.

Giving gifts to someone is not inherently worship, even if the gift is in appreciation for something they have done for you.

There is NO altar to Mary in any Catholic church anywhere in the world. Altars are dedicated to God alone.

Popes have entrusted the Church to Mary so that she can lead its members to love her Son as fervently as she did. Wanting the Church to love Jesus more completely is hardly a bad thing.

Intent is critically important in these circumstances. Anyone who intended to worship Mary as any form of divinity has gone well beyond the bounds of what the Catholic Church allows.

The only action that is always a form of divine worship is sacrifice. The only sacrifice the Catholic Church recognizes as necessary or permissible is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary, of which the Mass is a re-presentation. This one sacrifice is offered exclusively to the Triune God and no one else.

---

Wife: "You're being unfaithful to me with another woman!"

Husband: "No, I'm not honey. Yes, I talk to her more than I talk to you, and ask her for things instead of asking you, but that's not being unfaithful. Yes, I heap lavish praise on her, more than I do you, but it's being kind to recognize someone for their great qualities, isn't it? Yes, I sing about her all day, but come on, I heard you singing about George Washington the other day, remember? Yes, I lavish her with money and gifts, but it's because I'm only being appreciative for all she's done for me. Yes, I think about her all day, more than I do you. Yes, I have pictures of her all over the house. Yes, I kiss those pictures before I go to bed at night. Yes, I go out on dates with her. Yes, I have sex with her. But she's not my wife, you are. So as long as I don't consider her my wife, then doing those things is not being unfaithful. Because doing all those things is still out of friendship - hyper-friendship! (hyper-dulia)

Wife: "But you call her your Co-Wife!"

Husband: "Honey, that doesn't mean that she is up to your level! It still means that she is subordinate and derivative to you. I always declare that YOU are my only wife, don't I? But I tell you what. Since you have so much confusion about that, I'll stop calling her that. Mind you, I'm still going to do all those other things.... but since I'm no longer going to call her my "Co-Wife", then you really have no cause to say that I'm unfaithful, okay?"

---

This has to be the worst straw man argument I've ever heard. You are bashing a caricature of the Church that exists only in your own mind. Anyone who focuses on Mary for her own sake is either ignorant of Catholic teaching or is intentionally disobeying it.

Unlike many Protestants, Catholics are not free to believe whatever they wish about any theological topic. For all that cultural Catholics often refuse to admit it, we have doctrines to which we must adhere.The Catholic Church explains, in painstaking detail, what it believes about the Blessed Virgin Mary and why it believes these things. Read them for yourself; they are in the Catechism on the Vatican website.

Of infinitely more importance, you should first read what the Catechism says about Jesus. It lays out Catholic belief in the supremacy and divinity of Christ in unmistakably clear terms.

---

It really isn't a caricature. It is exactly how you're trying to defend your church's marian practices and beliefs. You line item each belief or practice in question, and then try to convince everyone how individually, each belief and practice done for a certain person does not necessarily constitute worship of that person. Now, if you only did one or maybe even two things on that list to that person, then maybe you could convince some of us. But the problem, which amazingly you seem to be so blithely unaware of, is the fact that if you find yourself doing ALL of them to that person, it's quite likely that you ARE worshiping that person.

You just need to be honest with yourself and others, and stop trying to gaslight everyone like the husband in my scenario was doing. And that scenairio isn't only about what you're personally doing, it's also about what your Church does in defense of its Mariology as well. One or two instances of over-the-top language about Mary, then fine. But such language being suffuse, constant, and repetitive in your Church, even from your popes and Doctors of the Church?? Then you take us for complete fools.

---

The Catholic criticism of the evangelical Protestant position is the reverse of what you have accused us of doing: Protestants only venerate God and don't fully worship Him.

Because you lack the sacrifice of the Mass, you don't actually worship God in the way that He expects to be worshipped. Therefore, veneration looks like worship to you because you don't have any true, sacrificial worship.

The bread and wine of the Eucharist must be consecrated by a validly ordained priest in order to be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Before the Reformation, literally every group that claimed to be Christian -- Catholic/Orthodox, Arian, Montanist, etc. -- believed this from as far back as we have written Church accounts. The New Testament was written and compiled by Apostles who were doing exactly this, and there is precisely zero historical evidence to the contrary.

Sola Scriptura is such a problem because it separated Protestants from the living Tradition of the Church, causing various Protestant churches to try to reverse engineer the worship of the early Church by only using the Bible. But the Bible, while it is an extremely important part, is still only part of the overall Deposit of Faith. It was never meant to be understood outside of the larger Tradition or without the guidance of the institutional Church.

The Christian Church is decades older than the New Testament, therefore its distinctively Christian beliefs logically cannot have their ultimate source in the Biblical New Testament. Christian belief had to pre-exist the writing and compilation of the books of the New Testament. There was a Church hierarchy before their was a Bible, and according to the Bible itself in John 21:25 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, there were Christian practices and beliefs that were not written down.

I grew up in a devout, churchgoing Southern Baptist household. The rest of my family is still Baptist, and I still deeply appreciate the Christian upbringing they provided for me. That said, I knew that I could not remain Baptist or Protestant when I realized that Sola Scriptura did not make logical sense and could not possibly be true. My further investigations and prayer led me to join the Catholic Church, a decision that I have never once regretted.

---

Which living tradition are you referencing, because Catholics have had a LOT of them, and they've changed significantly over the years (which, of course, is always the issue when you try to elevate man-made tradition to be equivalent to holy-inspired scripture).

Couldn't disagree more with the Catholic position that protestants don't worship God. First, protestant is a vast and expansive term. We all worship very differently. Moreover, having been to mass plenty of times over the years, adherence to some ritualistic set of rules doesn't equal worship.

Your experience has been much different than mine. I find that most Catholics with whom I converse don't even have the central tenets of the faith clearly defined in their minds. Most of them seem to believe being good people will somehow get them to Heaven. It's truly shocking.

---

You unwittingly hit the nail on the head with the biggest problem

"We all worship very differently"

We know

And thats why this thread is so important and enjoyable when people talk without name calling and offending people (unless theyre offended by alternative view points or facts they dont like)

ARbear13 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"

The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.

If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.

Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.

---

You are asking people to ignore the tsunami of evidence that belies your claim, as if a single, recent doctrinal statement from your church should be "good enough" to override all that. And we're just not seeing any honesty from you in acknowledging any of it. Rather, it's just the usual denial, excuse making, and obfuscations.

Arguing that your church only believes in Mary's "subordinate and derivative" role in mediation is highly disingenuous. CLEARLY, your church's idea of a "subordinate" role for Mary still has her as close to Jesus' as possible without going over; and your church CLEARLY teaches that Mary's mediation, though derivative to Jesus', is still NECESSARY for salvation. Not only is there absolutely NO basis in Scripture or in the early church for ANY of this, there's also none for Mary even having ANY mediator role at all to begin with. And to elevate her in such a way as to say she is necessary for salvation should be so plainly heretical and idolatrous to anyone who is a Christian, as no one with the Holy Spirit would be comfortable at all with even hinting at crediting anyone for this except Jesus alone. Your church's (as well as even your) inability/unwillingness to disavow such things as this (as well as a number of others) completely undermines the authenticity of the Vatican's recent doctrinal statement as well as your church's repeated insistence that you don't worship Mary, and that you never did.

Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.

---

Just because the Romans have more churches, shrines and altars named after & dedicated to Mary than they have to Jesus.... that doesn't mean that they worship her.
"We said we don't worship Mary! Why are you upset that we sing songs of praise & worship to her?!? Just because we pray to her, sing to her, and bring gifts to her image and her altar... that doesn't mean we worship her!! Just because multiple Popes have entrusted the church into her hands.... that doesn't mean anything!!"
How can anyone believe this nonsense?

---

Prayer is not inherently worship. The word literally means "to ask." The phrase "I pray thee" used to be common in English when asking a person to do something.

Praise is not inherently worship. Praising or complimenting someone for their great qualities is a normal and kind thing to do.

Singing about someone is not inherently worship. If it is, you've committed idolatry every time you sang a song about a particular person.

Giving gifts to someone is not inherently worship, even if the gift is in appreciation for something they have done for you.

There is NO altar to Mary in any Catholic church anywhere in the world. Altars are dedicated to God alone.

Popes have entrusted the Church to Mary so that she can lead its members to love her Son as fervently as she did. Wanting the Church to love Jesus more completely is hardly a bad thing.

Intent is critically important in these circumstances. Anyone who intended to worship Mary as any form of divinity has gone well beyond the bounds of what the Catholic Church allows.

The only action that is always a form of divine worship is sacrifice. The only sacrifice the Catholic Church recognizes as necessary or permissible is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary, of which the Mass is a re-presentation. This one sacrifice is offered exclusively to the Triune God and no one else.

---

Wife: "You're being unfaithful to me with another woman!"

Husband: "No, I'm not honey. Yes, I talk to her more than I talk to you, and ask her for things instead of asking you, but that's not being unfaithful. Yes, I heap lavish praise on her, more than I do you, but it's being kind to recognize someone for their great qualities, isn't it? Yes, I sing about her all day, but come on, I heard you singing about George Washington the other day, remember? Yes, I lavish her with money and gifts, but it's because I'm only being appreciative for all she's done for me. Yes, I think about her all day, more than I do you. Yes, I have pictures of her all over the house. Yes, I kiss those pictures before I go to bed at night. Yes, I go out on dates with her. Yes, I have sex with her. But she's not my wife, you are. So as long as I don't consider her my wife, then doing those things is not being unfaithful. Because doing all those things is still out of friendship - hyper-friendship! (hyper-dulia)

Wife: "But you call her your Co-Wife!"

Husband: "Honey, that doesn't mean that she is up to your level! It still means that she is subordinate and derivative to you. I always declare that YOU are my only wife, don't I? But I tell you what. Since you have so much confusion about that, I'll stop calling her that. Mind you, I'm still going to do all those other things.... but since I'm no longer going to call her my "Co-Wife", then you really have no cause to say that I'm unfaithful, okay?"

---

This has to be the worst straw man argument I've ever heard. You are bashing a caricature of the Church that exists only in your own mind. Anyone who focuses on Mary for her own sake is either ignorant of Catholic teaching or is intentionally disobeying it.

Unlike many Protestants, Catholics are not free to believe whatever they wish about any theological topic. For all that cultural Catholics often refuse to admit it, we have doctrines to which we must adhere.The Catholic Church explains, in painstaking detail, what it believes about the Blessed Virgin Mary and why it believes these things. Read them for yourself; they are in the Catechism on the Vatican website.

Of infinitely more importance, you should first read what the Catechism says about Jesus. It lays out Catholic belief in the supremacy and divinity of Christ in unmistakably clear terms.

---

It really isn't a caricature. It is exactly how you're trying to defend your church's marian practices and beliefs. You line item each belief or practice in question, and then try to convince everyone how individually, each belief and practice done for a certain person does not necessarily constitute worship of that person. Now, if you only did one or maybe even two things on that list to that person, then maybe you could convince some of us. But the problem, which amazingly you seem to be so blithely unaware of, is the fact that if you find yourself doing ALL of them to that person, it's quite likely that you ARE worshiping that person.

You just need to be honest with yourself and others, and stop trying to gaslight everyone like the husband in my scenario was doing. And that scenairio isn't only about what you're personally doing, it's also about what your Church does in defense of its Mariology as well. One or two instances of over-the-top language about Mary, then fine. But such language being suffuse, constant, and repetitive in your Church, even from your popes and Doctors of the Church?? Then you take us for complete fools.

---

The Catholic criticism of the evangelical Protestant position is the reverse of what you have accused us of doing: Protestants only venerate God and don't fully worship Him.

Because you lack the sacrifice of the Mass, you don't actually worship God in the way that He expects to be worshipped. Therefore, veneration looks like worship to you because you don't have any true, sacrificial worship.

The bread and wine of the Eucharist must be consecrated by a validly ordained priest in order to be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Before the Reformation, literally every group that claimed to be Christian -- Catholic/Orthodox, Arian, Montanist, etc. -- believed this from as far back as we have written Church accounts. The New Testament was written and compiled by Apostles who were doing exactly this, and there is precisely zero historical evidence to the contrary.

Sola Scriptura is such a problem because it separated Protestants from the living Tradition of the Church, causing various Protestant churches to try to reverse engineer the worship of the early Church by only using the Bible. But the Bible, while it is an extremely important part, is still only part of the overall Deposit of Faith. It was never meant to be understood outside of the larger Tradition or without the guidance of the institutional Church.

The Christian Church is decades older than the New Testament, therefore its distinctively Christian beliefs logically cannot have their ultimate source in the Biblical New Testament. Christian belief had to pre-exist the writing and compilation of the books of the New Testament. There was a Church hierarchy before their was a Bible, and according to the Bible itself in John 21:25 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, there were Christian practices and beliefs that were not written down.

I grew up in a devout, churchgoing Southern Baptist household. The rest of my family is still Baptist, and I still deeply appreciate the Christian upbringing they provided for me. That said, I knew that I could not remain Baptist or Protestant when I realized that Sola Scriptura did not make logical sense and could not possibly be true. My further investigations and prayer led me to join the Catholic Church, a decision that I have never once regretted.

---

I would update your bolded to Say

"The way he COMMANDS to be worshipped"

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In my many years of debating and evangelizing Ps I was originally quite shocked at how they will consistently completely take one verse out of context and form their whole faith around it.

Most common is the works debate not realizing hes telling them they dont have to do works of the mosaic law and yet even in the mast 2 pages someone has posted on that several times.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

The idea that Mary was sinless, for whatever reason, simply isn't Biblical. There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

You also Are wrongly assuming the scripture is all there is. In fact, you are explicitly told it is not unless Luther removed that. Im sure you know the verse.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

In my opinion, the strongest case against mere symbolism comes directly from the sixth chapter of John's gospel.

"52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"
53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven--not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever."
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you?"

He didn't say "guys, I'm just using an illustration." He doubled down. He knew exactly what he was telling them. They knew exactly what they were hearing. Zero confusion. Then what happened?

66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

In their human reason they simply could not accept the real presence and *walked away* from Christ. At some point, you simply have to set aside your will and reason and accept things by faith even if you don't understand why this side of heaven.

---

You've already been shown how if Jesus did in fact instruct his disciples to drink blood, then he disobeyed the Law, thus disqualifying himself as the Messiah.

---

I have never heard a catholic address this issue.
Drinking blood is clearly a violation of the law, so how could Jesus have been without sin if he and his apostles drank blood at the last supper?

---

Really? Never? I dont believe that but if so, Ok well heres your first time. This is what Catholics understand of your question. 60 seconds to ponder

---

Thanks.But that is not the question.I asked, I asked, how jesus could have been without sin.If he violated the law by drinking blood, can you answer my question?
And by the way, it never said animal blood, only it clearly. Just said, do not drink blood. The old law was very clear. So once again, how do you explain that? Jesus and the apostles clearly broke the law. And yet, Jesus was without sin.

---

We can develop this more as i have time

Your question is a non sequitur based on a false premise. Namely because jesus did things in violation of mosaic law such as healing on the sabbath. Was that a sin? The jews thought so. Jesus spoke to it.

When the jews said that his words to eat (he said literally to gnaw and tear) his body and drink his blood were hard to hear, what did Jesus do? Say "thats cool, Good point. that would be breaking the mosaic laws about blood, animal blood, etc?"?

Nope. He doubled down!!! And they walked away in John 6:66

So one just has to decide who you are in that story. One who said its hard and you cant take those words and walk away or one who does what he says.

---

Well, perhaps those who don't believe we are drinking literal blood when we partake in communion will at least end up in "paradise" instead of Hell.

---

This is possible. The Bible says people knelt there. They wouldnt kneel in hell of course.

---

Even though we disagree with whether paradise represents some different place than Heaven, what we know is the thief was saved. And therein lies the point made on the other thread you abandoned.

---

Only so many hours in the day

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

The idea that Mary was sinless, for whatever reason, simply isn't Biblical. There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

What the RC church gets wrong about Mary is immaculate conception. She was not guilty of personal sins by Grace, but did need salvation from Christ. She wasn't exempt from the fallen human condition.

This is what the early church taught.

---

No, the early church did teach that Mary was guilty of personal sin too:

Origen (185-253 AD): "Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal, when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if 'all have sinned, and lack God's glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed' (Rom 3:23) then Mary too was scandalized at that time."

Basil (330-379 AD) writes about the "sword piercing Mary's heart" and says the "sword" is doubt about Jesus. Roman Catholic theologian John Henry Newman says this about Basil's statement: "St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt."

John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) writes about Mary being selfishly ambitious at the wedding in Cana - "She desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more consipicuous, perhaps too she had some human feelings, like his brethren, when they said 'show thyself to the world', desiring to gain credit for his miracles." He goes on to say "she claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct him in all things, when she ouhg to thave reverenced and worshiped him." He then calls Mary's requirest of her Son a the wedding in Cana "the disease of vainglory".

---

Origen is describing Mary being shaken emotionally at the crucifixion, not accusing her of moral sin, but acknowledging that she suffered and struggled. Origen is also not considered doctrinally authoritative.

With Basil, the sword is understood by nearly all early Fathers as sorrow and anguish, not sinful doubt and unbelief.

Mary may have been tempted, but Chrysostom didn't say she consented to it or acted sinfully. Christ himself was tempted. Temptation doesn't imply moral guilt. Chrysostom never denies Mary's title 'Panagia'.

Everything you've cited describes temptation and suffering, not moral transgression.

I don't think Mary is your underlying issue, its that Protestant's (especially after Calvin) teach that human nature is so corrupted by the fall that a person cannot meaningfully cooperate with Grace. That's actually my biggest concern and why I'm in no man's land currently: I want to transform myself and sin as little as possible. My current Protestant church doesn't have a toolbox for stopping sin. They don't have regular fasting, prayer rules and serious ascetism: in the short time I've practices these things, I've been able to stop habitual sin and addiction.

It is Good news if Mary was able to withstand sin by her extreme closeness to Jesus. That means we can radically transform ourselves and sin less. Could you imagine being a virgin and giving birth to the Son of God and witnessing all these miracles in person...I promise you would sin much less than you currently do.

---

Well done. Some things in the quote were just way off based and could confuse many people.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

Perhaps not. But there's no scriptural support for sola scriptura, either.

---

Sure there is. See Deut. 8:3; Psalm 138:2; 2 Tim. 3

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

The idea that Mary was sinless, for whatever reason, simply isn't Biblical. There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

What the RC church gets wrong about Mary is immaculate conception. She was not guilty of personal sins by Grace, but did need salvation from Christ. She wasn't exempt from the fallen human condition.

This is what the early church taught.

---

No, the early church did teach that Mary was guilty of personal sin too:

Origen (185-253 AD): "Why do we think that the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal, when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if 'all have sinned, and lack God's glory, but are justified by his grace and redeemed' (Rom 3:23) then Mary too was scandalized at that time."

Basil (330-379 AD) writes about the "sword piercing Mary's heart" and says the "sword" is doubt about Jesus. Roman Catholic theologian John Henry Newman says this about Basil's statement: "St. Basil imputes to the Blessed Virgin, not only doubt, but the sin of doubt."

John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) writes about Mary being selfishly ambitious at the wedding in Cana - "She desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more consipicuous, perhaps too she had some human feelings, like his brethren, when they said 'show thyself to the world', desiring to gain credit for his miracles." He goes on to say "she claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct him in all things, when she ouhg to thave reverenced and worshiped him." He then calls Mary's requirest of her Son a the wedding in Cana "the disease of vainglory".

---

I don't think Mary is your underlying issue, its that Protestant's (especially after Calvin) teach that human nature is so corrupted by the fall that a person cannot meaningfully cooperate with Grace. That's actually my biggest concern and why I'm in no man's land currently: I want to transform myself and sin as little as possible. My current Protestant church doesn't have a toolbox for stopping sin. They don't have regular fasting, prayer rules and serious ascetism: in the short time I've practices these things, I've been able to stop habitual sin and addiction.

It is Good news if Mary was able to withstand sin by her extreme closeness to Jesus. That means we can radically transform ourselves and sin less. Could you imagine being a virgin and giving birth to the Son of God and witnessing all these miracles in person...I promise you would sin much less than you currently do.

---

Wise words. Prayers and blessings for you on your journey.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ARBear13 gave a good answer, that Mary is the first and greatest evangelist. Her role as co-mediatrix and co-redeemer, if one chooses to use those terms, doesn't diminish Christ but points the way to him.

The idea is similar to what Paul says in Colossians 1:24 -- that he is grateful for his sufferings because they help complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Of course we know that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for our salvation. All that's lacking is evangelizing, which is what Paul refers to.

To that I would only add that Mary's role as evangelist didn't end with Christ's death and resurrection. The Church teaches that it continues until the end of time:

Quote:

---

This maternity of Mary in the order of grace began with the consent which she gave in faith at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, and lasts until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and cultics, until they are led into the happiness of their true home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator. (Lumen Gentium 62)

---

---

ArBear didn't give a good answer. He didn't answer me at all. He completely dodged the point, just as you are doing.

---

"All Christians can help 'save' others in a subordinate sense through evangelism by directing people to Jesus. The Apostle Paul said as much in 1 Corinthians 9:22. The Catholic Church believes that Mother Mary is the best possible evangelist because she loved Jesus more than anyone else, so she can bring people to salvation through her evangelical witness. That is the sense in which the word 'salvation' is used in all the scenarios you quoted."

---

There is no recorded evidence in scripture of Mary evangelizing to anyone. Now, we can probably assume it happened, but the idea that someone who no mention is made of evangelizing is somehow the "greatest' evangelist is reading something into the text that is simply not there.

---

What constitutes evangelization in your eyes?

---

Spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ, as Paul and the disciples did in scripture. That is the plain meaning of the word.

We see Mary described as a lot of things in scripture. Evangelist isn't one of them.

---

At the wedding feast in Cana she tells Jesus it is time to start his public ministry (an imposition he first resists). She tells the servants to do whatever they are told to with regard to the shortage of wine. She also plays a crucial role in the prophecy of a virgin birth from Isiah, which undoubtedly leads some people to believe. There is your "recorded in scripture" evangelization.

Outside of scripture, her miraculous appearances have led to countless conversions. Among the most important, her appearance in 1531 outside of present day Mexico, where she declares she wants a church built so that people may know her son, leads to one of the largest known mass conversion events. This directly leads the native Aztec population to finally stop their most violent cultural practices and brings them to Jesus.

---

While I love Christ's interaction with his mother at the wedding in Cana, as it implies she knows what he is capable of (and may have even seen it before), what you describe in paragraph 1 is not "recorded in scripture" evangelization under any reasonable interpretation of that term. Again, evangelism has a clearly understood meaning, and that's not what those verses describe in any way, shape or form.

Any alleged extra-scriptural "appearances" of Mary should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Quite frankly, they are not to be trusted. There simply is no scriptural support for the idea that an apparition of Mary appears to people on earth.

---

And yet hundreds of millions converted to
catholicism as a result

You do know the Scriptures were written before the 16 apparitions of Blessed Mother Mary correct?

Do you have any knowledge at all of Our Lady of Guadalupe? I can recommend a book. It may lead to your conversion. You wont be the first nor the last.

---

There is no verifiable evidence of Mary appearing to anyone.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

In my opinion, the strongest case against mere symbolism comes directly from the sixth chapter of John's gospel.

"52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?"
53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven--not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever."
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?"
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you?"

He didn't say "guys, I'm just using an illustration." He doubled down. He knew exactly what he was telling them. They knew exactly what they were hearing. Zero confusion. Then what happened?

66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

In their human reason they simply could not accept the real presence and *walked away* from Christ. At some point, you simply have to set aside your will and reason and accept things by faith even if you don't understand why this side of heaven.

---

You've already been shown how if Jesus did in fact instruct his disciples to drink blood, then he disobeyed the Law, thus disqualifying himself as the Messiah.

---

I have never heard a catholic address this issue.
Drinking blood is clearly a violation of the law, so how could Jesus have been without sin if he and his apostles drank blood at the last supper?

---

Really? Never? I dont believe that but if so, Ok well heres your first time. This is what Catholics understand of your question. 60 seconds to ponder

---

Thanks.But that is not the question.I asked, I asked, how jesus could have been without sin.If he violated the law by drinking blood, can you answer my question?
And by the way, it never said animal blood, only it clearly. Just said, do not drink blood. The old law was very clear. So once again, how do you explain that? Jesus and the apostles clearly broke the law. And yet, Jesus was without sin.

---

We can develop this more as i have time

Your question is a non sequitur based on a false premise. Namely because jesus did things in violation of mosaic law such as healing on the sabbath. Was that a sin? The jews thought so. Jesus spoke to it.

When the jews said that his words to eat (he said literally to gnaw and tear) his body and drink his blood were hard to hear, what did Jesus do? Say "thats cool, Good point. that would be breaking the mosaic laws about blood, animal blood, etc?"?

Nope. He doubled down!!! And they walked away in John 6:66

So one just has to decide who you are in that story. One who said its hard and you cant take those words and walk away or one who does what he says.

---

Well, perhaps those who don't believe we are drinking literal blood when we partake in communion will at least end up in "paradise" instead of Hell.

---

This is possible. The Bible says people knelt there. They wouldnt kneel in hell of course.

---

Even though we disagree with whether paradise represents some different place than Heaven, what we know is the thief was saved. And therein lies the point made on the other thread you abandoned.

---

Only so many hours in the day

---

Uh huh. But you apparently had enough time for more than a dozen posts on this thread.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

The idea that Mary was sinless, for whatever reason, simply isn't Biblical. There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

You also Are wrongly assuming the scripture is all there is. In fact, you are explicitly told it is not unless Luther removed that. Im sure you know the verse.

---

I would submit that when scripture contradicts oral tradition, you might want to consider oral tradition is wrong.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In my many years of debating and evangelizing Ps I was originally quite shocked at how they will consistently completely take one verse out of context and form their whole faith around it..

---

This is a strong candidate for ironic post of the year...

Prior to 200 years past guttenburg what % of people do you think had the written word?

How do you account for centuries of people that couldnt have adhered to your faith whej no Bible existed?

Have you studied what it cost in those times to get a scroll of any written text much less the 73 books of the Bible?

Ive read the Bible cover to cover many times. Near 0% of people could even have the opportunity to do that for half a millenia and then maybe 1% could.

Up until Luther and Calvin invented a new religion with Catholic roots that % hadn't increased much beyond 1%

Theres no logical or Biblical basis for sola scriptura

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

Perhaps not. But there's no scriptural support for sola scriptura, either.

---

Sure there is. See Deut. 8:3; Psalm 138:2; 2 Tim. 3

---

I rest my case.

ARbear13 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

ARbear13 said:

---

It's very ironic that I posted this specifically to emphasize the common ground that Catholics and Protestants share on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, yet we Catholics still get the "You Catholics worship Mary! You can't lie to us!"

The Vatican releases a doctrinal statement restricting the use of certain titles for Mother Mary specifically to re-emphasize Christ as the Sole Mediator and Redeemer, which Catholics have always believed, and some Protestants still accuse us of Marian idolatry.

If you expect the Catholic Church to begin minimizing the Virgin Mary's holiness and importance as a subordinate and derivative participant in Christ's mediation, you'll be waiting forever. That is never going to happen. However, if you want us to say "Jesus Christ is Lord and God, and only He is to be worshipped," we will very happily and readily do so.

Jesus of Nazareth is the Second Person of the Triune God. The Triune God is the only divinity that exists and is deserving of all love and worship. The Catholic Church greatly esteems and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God and the Church's spiritual mother, but she is not divine and may not be worshipped. Any Catholic who worships Mary is doing so in direct defiance of the unchanging and explicit teaching of the Church's Magisterium, which only permits the worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Is that good enough for you? I am guessing that nothing would be good enough for some of you because you are have already decided that Catholics are semi-pagan, but it should be enough.

---

You are asking people to ignore the tsunami of evidence that belies your claim, as if a single, recent doctrinal statement from your church should be "good enough" to override all that. And we're just not seeing any honesty from you in acknowledging any of it. Rather, it's just the usual denial, excuse making, and obfuscations.

Arguing that your church only believes in Mary's "subordinate and derivative" role in mediation is highly disingenuous. CLEARLY, your church's idea of a "subordinate" role for Mary still has her as close to Jesus' as possible without going over; and your church CLEARLY teaches that Mary's mediation, though derivative to Jesus', is still NECESSARY for salvation. Not only is there absolutely NO basis in Scripture or in the early church for ANY of this, there's also none for Mary even having ANY mediator role at all to begin with. And to elevate her in such a way as to say she is necessary for salvation should be so plainly heretical and idolatrous to anyone who is a Christian, as no one with the Holy Spirit would be comfortable at all with even hinting at crediting anyone for this except Jesus alone. Your church's (as well as even your) inability/unwillingness to disavow such things as this (as well as a number of others) completely undermines the authenticity of the Vatican's recent doctrinal statement as well as your church's repeated insistence that you don't worship Mary, and that you never did.

Ask yourself this: if it's true that your church never taught that Mary has a mediator role equal to that of Jesus, then how is it that there is currently a tremendous blowback from Roman Catholics all over the world against the Vatican and the current pope over this doctrinal statement? They are viewing it as an attack on what they believe is Mary's EQUAL role with Jesus. You can claim all you want that they're just simply wrong, that your church never taught that... but they had to have gotten that idea from somewhere. It didn't just fall out of the sky.

---

Just because the Romans have more churches, shrines and altars named after & dedicated to Mary than they have to Jesus.... that doesn't mean that they worship her.
"We said we don't worship Mary! Why are you upset that we sing songs of praise & worship to her?!? Just because we pray to her, sing to her, and bring gifts to her image and her altar... that doesn't mean we worship her!! Just because multiple Popes have entrusted the church into her hands.... that doesn't mean anything!!"
How can anyone believe this nonsense?

---

Prayer is not inherently worship. The word literally means "to ask." The phrase "I pray thee" used to be common in English when asking a person to do something.

Praise is not inherently worship. Praising or complimenting someone for their great qualities is a normal and kind thing to do.

Singing about someone is not inherently worship. If it is, you've committed idolatry every time you sang a song about a particular person.

Giving gifts to someone is not inherently worship, even if the gift is in appreciation for something they have done for you.

There is NO altar to Mary in any Catholic church anywhere in the world. Altars are dedicated to God alone.

Popes have entrusted the Church to Mary so that she can lead its members to love her Son as fervently as she did. Wanting the Church to love Jesus more completely is hardly a bad thing.

Intent is critically important in these circumstances. Anyone who intended to worship Mary as any form of divinity has gone well beyond the bounds of what the Catholic Church allows.

The only action that is always a form of divine worship is sacrifice. The only sacrifice the Catholic Church recognizes as necessary or permissible is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary, of which the Mass is a re-presentation. This one sacrifice is offered exclusively to the Triune God and no one else.

---

Wife: "You're being unfaithful to me with another woman!"

Husband: "No, I'm not honey. Yes, I talk to her more than I talk to you, and ask her for things instead of asking you, but that's not being unfaithful. Yes, I heap lavish praise on her, more than I do you, but it's being kind to recognize someone for their great qualities, isn't it? Yes, I sing about her all day, but come on, I heard you singing about George Washington the other day, remember? Yes, I lavish her with money and gifts, but it's because I'm only being appreciative for all she's done for me. Yes, I think about her all day, more than I do you. Yes, I have pictures of her all over the house. Yes, I kiss those pictures before I go to bed at night. Yes, I go out on dates with her. Yes, I have sex with her. But she's not my wife, you are. So as long as I don't consider her my wife, then doing those things is not being unfaithful. Because doing all those things is still out of friendship - hyper-friendship! (hyper-dulia)

Wife: "But you call her your Co-Wife!"

Husband: "Honey, that doesn't mean that she is up to your level! It still means that she is subordinate and derivative to you. I always declare that YOU are my only wife, don't I? But I tell you what. Since you have so much confusion about that, I'll stop calling her that. Mind you, I'm still going to do all those other things.... but since I'm no longer going to call her my "Co-Wife", then you really have no cause to say that I'm unfaithful, okay?"

---

This has to be the worst straw man argument I've ever heard. You are bashing a caricature of the Church that exists only in your own mind. Anyone who focuses on Mary for her own sake is either ignorant of Catholic teaching or is intentionally disobeying it.

Unlike many Protestants, Catholics are not free to believe whatever they wish about any theological topic. For all that cultural Catholics often refuse to admit it, we have doctrines to which we must adhere.The Catholic Church explains, in painstaking detail, what it believes about the Blessed Virgin Mary and why it believes these things. Read them for yourself; they are in the Catechism on the Vatican website.

Of infinitely more importance, you should first read what the Catechism says about Jesus. It lays out Catholic belief in the supremacy and divinity of Christ in unmistakably clear terms.

---

It really isn't a caricature. It is exactly how you're trying to defend your church's marian practices and beliefs. You line item each belief or practice in question, and then try to convince everyone how individually, each belief and practice done for a certain person does not necessarily constitute worship of that person. Now, if you only did one or maybe even two things on that list to that person, then maybe you could convince some of us. But the problem, which amazingly you seem to be so blithely unaware of, is the fact that if you find yourself doing ALL of them to that person, it's quite likely that you ARE worshiping that person.

You just need to be honest with yourself and others, and stop trying to gaslight everyone like the husband in my scenario was doing. And that scenairio isn't only about what you're personally doing, it's also about what your Church does in defense of its Mariology as well. One or two instances of over-the-top language about Mary, then fine. But such language being suffuse, constant, and repetitive in your Church, even from your popes and Doctors of the Church?? Then you take us for complete fools.

---

The Catholic criticism of the evangelical Protestant position is the reverse of what you have accused us of doing: Protestants only venerate God and don't fully worship Him.

Because you lack the sacrifice of the Mass, you don't actually worship God in the way that He expects to be worshipped. Therefore, veneration looks like worship to you because you don't have any true, sacrificial worship.

The bread and wine of the Eucharist must be consecrated by a validly ordained priest in order to be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Before the Reformation, literally every group that claimed to be Christian -- Catholic/Orthodox, Arian, Montanist, etc. -- believed this from as far back as we have written Church accounts. The New Testament was written and compiled by Apostles who were doing exactly this, and there is precisely zero historical evidence to the contrary.

---

There is no ONE way to worship God, where if you're not doing that, it means you're not worshiping. Nowhere does God say that "unless you take part in the Eucharist where the priest turns the bread and wine into the body of Christ, then you're not worshiping the way I want".

Worship is all from the heart. God loves worship in any form, if the person is giving God love, honor, and praise with all their heart. Worship is "in spirit and in truth", not by rites and rituals:

"But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him" - John 4:23

So, an African tribesman who hears the gospel, and believes with all his heart, and expresses his overwhelming gratitude to Jesus with heartfelt praise and joy in the only manner he knows how - tribal dances, music, singing etc, but what he does, he does it fully for the Lord...... THAT'S worship that God loves.

A small group of poor Christians in China, having no formal church or pastor, and just one bible among them, but filled with love and joy for Jesus, so they all share their possessions with each other and help each other, and continually support each other's faith through hard times, and what they do, they do it for the Lord..... THAT'S worship that God loves.

A lone hiker in the mountains, completely stunned by the beauty of God's creation on earth, and overwhelmed by the beauty and majesty of the night sky with its innumerable stars, lifts his hands up to heaven and shouts "WHO are you, God, that you made all of this!! I want to know you!!"..... THAT'S worship that God loves.

Etc, etc.

None of the above had a priest turn bread into Jesus' body for them to eat. But I contend that God loves all the above forms of worship as much, if not greater than, the Eucharist sacrament. In fact, I don't think God accepts the Roman Catholic Eucharist at all. It's an abomination. Jesus was sacrificed ONCE for all time, and your mass is a rejection of that. Plus, the Catholic mass is filled with pagan symbols.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

---

Well, I suppose that the Paul never read or listened to the Torah:

• Gen 6:9 - "These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God"
• Gen 15:6 - "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness".
• Job 1:1 - There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

He prolly didn't listen to any of the other sacred writers like Luke or Matthew:

• Luke 2:25 - Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout.
• Matt 1:19 - Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

I apologize for the snark in my response. Having said that, your quotes illustrate the point that we should NOT try to build a theology around individual passages in the bible without looking at the broader context.

For instance, your "gothca" passage of Romans 3:10 when read in context, demonstrates a poetic, hyperbolic expression emphasizing universal sinfulness and the need for salvation for all (Rom 3:9-12).

It wasn't to be read as an exclusionary text saying what you were trying to imply.

---

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

That isn't really what the Church teaches, though. Mary was saved by Christ and perfected in righteousness by God's grace.

---

There is no scriptural support for this position.

---

Perhaps not. But there's no scriptural support for sola scriptura, either.

---

Sure there is. See Deut. 8:3; Psalm 138:2; 2 Tim. 3

---

I rest my case.

---

Glad to hear you concede.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Prior to 200 years past guttenburg what % of people do you think had the written word?

How do you account for centuries of people that couldnt have adhered to your faith whej no Bible existed?

Have you studied what it cost in those times to get a scroll of any written text much less the 73 books of the Bible?

Ive read the Bible cover to cover many times. Near 0% of people could even have the opportunity to do that for half a millenia and then maybe 1% could.

Up until Luther and Calvin invented a new religion with Catholic roots that % hadn't increased much beyond 1%

Theres no logical or Biblical basis for sola scriptura

---

Scripture has been read for centuries in the Christian church.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Prior to 200 years past guttenburg what % of people do you think had the written word?

How do you account for centuries of people that couldnt have adhered to your faith whej no Bible existed?

Have you studied what it cost in those times to get a scroll of any written text much less the 73 books of the Bible?

Ive read the Bible cover to cover many times. Near 0% of people could even have the opportunity to do that for half a millenia and then maybe 1% could.

Up until Luther and Calvin invented a new religion with Catholic roots that % hadn't increased much beyond 1%

Theres no logical or Biblical basis for sola scriptura

---

Scripture has been read for centuries in the Christian church.

---

All 73 books

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Prior to 200 years past guttenburg what % of people do you think had the written word?

How do you account for centuries of people that couldnt have adhered to your faith whej no Bible existed?

Have you studied what it cost in those times to get a scroll of any written text much less the 73 books of the Bible?

Ive read the Bible cover to cover many times. Near 0% of people could even have the opportunity to do that for half a millenia and then maybe 1% could.

Up until Luther and Calvin invented a new religion with Catholic roots that % hadn't increased much beyond 1%

Theres no logical or Biblical basis for sola scriptura

---

Scripture has been read for centuries in the Christian church.

---

All 73 books

---

Melito's canon (170 AD) is the earliest known Christian canon list. It corresponds almost exactly to the Tanakh, which is the Protestant Old Testament. None of the apocryphal books are included.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Prior to 200 years past guttenburg what % of people do you think had the written word?

How do you account for centuries of people that couldnt have adhered to your faith whej no Bible existed?

Have you studied what it cost in those times to get a scroll of any written text much less the 73 books of the Bible?

Ive read the Bible cover to cover many times. Near 0% of people could even have the opportunity to do that for half a millenia and then maybe 1% could.

Up until Luther and Calvin invented a new religion with Catholic roots that % hadn't increased much beyond 1%

Theres no logical or Biblical basis for sola scriptura

---

Scripture has been read for centuries in the Christian church.

---

Which is not the universal church according to your stated beliefs. Something other than the universal church. We were all warned about this in scripture.

Mothra said:

---

I am not sure your gotcha to his gotcha is the gotcha you believe it to be (yes, I did just write that).

In all seriousness, as you suggested, context is important. We should at least agree that nobody can come to the Father except through Christ. That is the point of Paul's statements in Romans - Christ is the only way to salvation. The idea that any of us - including Mary - can be saved without Christ's intervention, merely by living a righteous life, is simply not a concept conveyed in scripture, as a sin-free existence simply isn't possible, even for the righteous.

---

Catholics will say "AMEN!" to your statement that ALL of us, including Mary, are only saved thru Christ's intervention.

Where we would disagree is with your statement that "a sin-free existence simply isn't possible."

Obviously, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary, through a "singular and privileged grace", was preserved from the stain of original sin at the moment of her conception in a singular grace from God in the anticipation of the merits of Jesus Christ. Her freedom from original sin allowed her to remain sinless throughout her life.

I fully understand that most protestants don't accept that because it's not explicitly called out in the bible.

I think it is only fair to ask where is the principle that everything that we have to believe if found in the bible?

The Trinity wasn't defined until AD 325 at the Council of Nicaea.
The Hypostatic Union wasn't defined until AD 451 at the Council of Chalcedon.
The two wills of Christ (dyothelitism) wasn't defined until the Third Council of Constantinople in AD 680.

None of these truths came explicitly from the Bible, but we still believe them because they are true. The men at these councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, affirmed these truths using scripture and tradition ensuring that they were not in conflict with the bible. It took time for these concepts to be fully fleshed out and formally promulgated.

The same can be said for the Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary. As I've agreed, that neither of these concepts are explicitly found in the Bible; however, using scripture and typology, we can see how they have solid theological foundations which have historical backing that wasn't refuted until well after the "reformation."

I'm happy to discuss those foundations in another post if someone would like to listen.

Mothra said:

---

Even Noah, by way of example, was not sinless in the eyes of the Lord, or do you not recall him getting drunk and then exposing himself to his children?

---

No one is arguing that righteousness is equated with sinlessness. My point was that his quote was easily refutable when taken in context.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Melito's canon (170 AD) is the earliest known Christian canon list. It corresponds almost exactly to the Tanakh, which is the Protestant Old Testament. None of the apocryphal books are included.

---

You are misusing this list again. It isn't the slam dunk you think it is.

Melito is providing a list of books for Christians to use in apologetics with the Jews. Therefore, these are the books Christians and Jews hold in common.

This is similar to when Jesus addressed the Sadducees using only the Torah.

Calling the Deuterocanon "apocryphal books" is somewhat demeaning and degrading. It comes from the Greek meaning, "hidden."

These books were never hidden. They were found in the Septuagint and used by the NT writers - almost 90% of the OT quotes are from the Deuterocanon.

Mothra said:

---

There is no verifiable evidence of Mary appearing to anyone.

---

The 70,000 people at the Miracle of the Sun in Fatima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917 say otherwise. In the crowd that day were Avelino de Almeida, who wrote for the Portuguese newspaper O Sculo (what was originally an anti-religious newspaper) and Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho: A lawyer and journalist who was a special reporter for the Lisbon daily, O Dia. A NY Times article from Oct. 1917 exists that verifies this event; however, I do not possess a subscription.

The Tilma of Juan Diego (a cactus-fiber cloak) that should have degrade nearly 450 years ago that contains the image of Our Lady of Guadelupe that miraculously appeared on Dec 12, 1531, on Tepeyac Hill in the area of modern-day Mexico City, also says otherwise.

The 72 confirmed miraculous healings in Lourdes, France at the Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes also say otherwise. That doesn't include the thousands of others that were healed; however, the Church does not count them as official miracles.

Dozens of other apparitions of Mary have appeared throughout the world that have been approved by the Church, who is the biggest skeptic when it comes to reporting on these.

Doc Holliday said:

---

I don't think Mary is your underlying issue, its that Protestant's (especially after Calvin) teach that human nature is so corrupted by the fall that a person cannot meaningfully cooperate with Grace. That's actually my biggest concern and why I'm in no man's land currently: I want to transform myself and sin as little as possible. My current Protestant church doesn't have a toolbox for stopping sin. They don't have regular fasting, prayer rules and serious ascetism: in the short time I've practices these things, I've been able to stop habitual sin and addiction.

It is Good news if Mary was able to withstand sin by her extreme closeness to Jesus. That means we can radically transform ourselves and sin less. Could you imagine being a virgin and giving birth to the Son of God and witnessing all these miracles in person...I promise you would sin much less than you currently do.

---

Wow! Kudos to you! That's hard to do on your own.

Several years ago, I once heard that a daughter asked her father what type of man that she should marry. The wise man responded with a phrase that has stuck with me to this day. He said, "Be sure to marry a man that can fast."

So much of our sin (disordered desires) is (are) tied to our lower passions (food, drink, lust). Men (and women) can learn to control those lower passions with prayer, fasting, and ascetism. For many, it is difficult (present company included.)

There is a program that you might find challenging and helpful called Exodus 90. It is a program for men to grow closer to God using those same tenants that you mentioned: prayer, fasting, and asceticism.

They started a few years ago with a Lenten program that starts 90 days before Easter (45 prior to Lent and the 45 days of Lent). It is tough to do properly. It includes an hour a day of prayer, reading (listening to) a passage of Exodus and a reflection upon that reading, 3 days a week of intense exercise, no alcohol, no snacks, no desserts, no TV, no internet (other than work), no social media, fasting and abstaining from meat on Wednesday's and Friday's, and COLD showers. One of the cool things about this program is that it is designed for men to do this with a small group of other men. You have weekly check-ins with your team and daily check-ins with your anchor partner.

The whole point of Exodus is that it is supposed to provide freedom (like the Hebrews got in their Exodus) from those worldly attachments.

I've done it ONCE. It was tough. I ended up losing close to 30 pounds (that's not why I did it - but it was a nice by-product). I took a year off and then did the Exodus Lent last year. It had fewer restrictions.

Anyway, they also have an Advent program that will be starting soon. It is similar, but not nearly as difficult as Exodus 90.

God Bless you on your journey!