Chick Tracts

[CSloan]

Great point saved, manna to you!

[broach972]

If Mary couldn't be stained with original sin, because Jesus would have been stained with original sin; then wouldn't her parents have to be perserved from original sin too?

What about the entire line of David, all the way back to Adam?

If not, why not?

Easy one to answer.  You are trying to cast Mary into a divine role.  The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception addresses this.  This was a one time event in the life of Mary.  Life begins at conception.  Nothing corrupt can touch the divine, but Mary was not divine.  The important thing is that Jesus must have been conceived and carried in a spotless and clean vessel.  God achieved this through the Immaculate Conception.  The following provides a clear and concise explanation:

In my experiences, many non-Catholics do not understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ's conception in Mary's womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that's what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God's grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.  Again, this was not of her own doing.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel's greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel's visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Fundamentalists' chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary's consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let's take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ's grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can't sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul's statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Paul's comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.


So, it wasn't necessary for the entire bloodline to be uncorrupted.  The Immaculate Conception was a one time event in Mary's life in preparation for the coming of the Lord.

[mllevaleur]

Ok mllevaleur,

I understand the important of the Ark, but it has no relation to Mary whatsoever. The only place Mary is ever referred to as the Ark is in catholic doctrines, which hold no authority to anyone but catholics and would-be catholics.

Well, there is an allusion, an implicit reference to Mary ask the Ark in Revelation 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the "woman" clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. In our understanding, John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Would I use this as the only and complete "proof"? No, standing alone it is simply my word against yours. But as we believe Oral teaching is meant to accompany the scriptures and shed light on them, we see it as an implicit reference. And as I said, none of this is contrary to our understanding of scripture. Scripture, to us, is simply the part of supernaturally guided Oral teaching that was written down. So you may not have explicit references to every last thing, but it fits together with the oral teachings like a puzzle.

But I would like you to answer me this question.

If Mary was in fact stained with sin, then Jesus should have been as well.  Remember, Jesus is both divine and human.  One cannot ignore either quality.  How can the divine be born of a sinful creature?

First, I didn't say this, and I have to slightly disagree with the way it is worded. I think, if God wanted to, He certainly *could* have been born of a sinful person. As I said in my previous post, since we believe he preserved Mary from sin while she was born of sinful parents, He certainly could have simply preserved Jesus from inheriting the sinful state of a person with sin. That's why I made the distinction that it was a gift, and that it was fitting, not necessarily required.

(There's a cute blog post here from a recent convert from when she was going through RCIA and still kind of grappling with some of the Mary issues talking about this very thing.)

If Mary couldn't be stained with original sin, because Jesus would have been stained with original sin; then wouldn't her parents have to be perserved from original sin too?

What about the entire line of David, all the way back to Adam?

If not, why not?

That's what the Immaculate Conception is all about, as broach explains. Mary, by a special act of God, was kept free from sin FOR Christ. When her flesh became Christ's flesh, her DNA Christ's DNA, it had never been touched by sin, as a gift for Him, as was fitting for the Most Holy One, God Incarnate, The Word Made Flesh.

[DCR]

I'm not sure how the doctrine of Immaculate Conception necessarily solves anything.  It only pushes the problem back one generation, IMO.

Didn't Mary also have her mother's (and in her case, even her father's) DNA?  If Mary needed to be kept sinless for Jesus.  Then, by that same reckoning, her parents would also have needed to be kept sinless for her... unless she was miraculously kept free of the sin of her parents... which God could have done for Christ, without doing this for Mary.

Of course, the whole problem is rather moot if you don't subscribe to the doctrine of original sin, anyway. 

[janine]

The fact that Mary and Joseph went to the Temple to do the poor-people's type sacrifice that one does after a baby comes does not say anything about whether5 or not Mary knew she was just as sinful as everybody else.  It only says that they were good Jews.

Don't get me wrong -- as worthy of honor as love and admiration as Mary (and Joseph) were, I hold no part of the beliefs that venerate her or any "saint" -- and especially not the rabid edges of veneration that are indistinguishable from worship.

But yet I have no opinion against the idea that God may have had His hand on Mary and her life in a special way -- after all, He had His hand on Israel in a special way, so that Messiah could come out of Israel -- why not tender care in Mary's life to ready her, so that when the time came for her to make a choice to obey God, she'd have all the best information and willingness within her to equip her to do it?

But then, I don't see anyone else as all that different -- I figure God woos us all.

But that passage doesn't hold water if you're trying to use it to say "See?  Mary wasn't sinless/didn't think of herself as sinless."

Kinda like Jesus getting John to immerse Him in a baptism of repentance.  What in the world did Jesus need to repent of?

I am still giggling over that link... "Assumptions" About Mary.  Tee hee hee.

[mllevaleur]

I'm not sure how the doctrine of Immaculate Conception necessarily solves anything.  It only pushes the problem back one generation, IMO.

Didn't Mary also have her mother's (and in her case, even her father's) DNA?  If Mary needed to be kept sinless for Jesus.  Then, by that same reckoning, her parents would also have needed to be kept sinless for her... unless she was miraculously kept free of the sin of her parents... which God could have done for Christ, without doing this for Mary.

Of course, the whole problem is rather moot if you don't subscribe to the doctrine of original sin, anyway. 

*looks in mirror...checks that she's not invisible...checks that her posts are indeed appearing...scratches head*



If you'll read my last couple posts, I believe that's what I was trying to explain. ;-) Perhaps I wasn't clear enough...

The Immaculate Conception means that God miraculously intervened in Mary's conception and kept her from inheriting original sin. (See the pit analogy broach posted above.) Could he have done this for Jesus instead? Certainly. So why do we believe He did this for Mary? As a gift to His Son, to provide a spotless vessel for Him, to be the New Ark, kept free from all impurity, in which the Word of God made Flesh would dwell. The Church doesn't teach that it was as "must" in order for Jesus to be born w/out original sin, she says that it was fitting for the Most Holy One, God Incarnate to dwell in a spotless and pure vessel.

Kind of like...when you have a really special artifact or treasure of some kind (say a prized baseball card, lol) you wouldn't just throw it in with a regular box of stuff, you'd likely make a special place for it, display it, or keep it protected and clean, etc. That's the idea.

An interesting sidenote pointing to the different way we regard Mary vs. Jesus...Mary didn't need sinless parents as a gift or special spotless dwelling place for her, because she wasn't nearly as worthy of such a thing as God Incarnate. Mary's immaculate conception is all about preparing a special place for Jesus...because it was fitting for the King, not because it was necessary.

Hope that's clear enough!  

[CSloan]

I am still giggling over that link... "Assumptions" About Mary.  Tee hee hee.

Isn't it ironic, its like them calling them members of a perish... I mean parish.

[Bon Voyage]

I'm not sure how the doctrine of Immaculate Conception necessarily solves anything.  It only pushes the problem back one generation, IMO.

Didn't Mary also have her mother's (and in her case, even her father's) DNA?  If Mary needed to be kept sinless for Jesus.  Then, by that same reckoning, her parents would also have needed to be kept sinless for her... unless she was miraculously kept free of the sin of her parents... which God could have done for Christ, without doing this for Mary.

Of course, the whole problem is rather moot if you don't subscribe to the doctrine of original sin, anyway. 

*looks in mirror...checks that she's not invisible...checks that her posts are indeed appearing...scratches head*



If you'll read my last couple posts, I believe that's what I was trying to explain. ;-) Perhaps I wasn't clear enough...

The Immaculate Conception means that God miraculously intervened in Mary's conception and kept her from inheriting original sin. (See the pit analogy broach posted above.) Could he have done this for Jesus instead? Certainly. So why do we believe He did this for Mary? As a gift to His Son, to provide a spotless vessel for Him, to be the New Ark, kept free from all impurity, in which the Word of God made Flesh would dwell. The Church doesn't teach that it was as "must" in order for Jesus to be born w/out original sin, she says that it was fitting for the Most Holy One, God Incarnate to dwell in a spotless and pure vessel.

Kind of like...when you have a really special artifact or treasure of some kind (say a prized baseball card, lol) you wouldn't just throw it in with a regular box of stuff, you'd likely make a special place for it, display it, or keep it protected and clean, etc. That's the idea.

An interesting sidenote pointing to the different way we regard Mary vs. Jesus...Mary didn't need sinless parents as a gift or special spotless dwelling place for her, because she wasn't nearly as worthy of such a thing as God Incarnate. Mary's immaculate conception is all about preparing a special place for Jesus...because it was fitting for the King, not because it was necessary.

Hope that's clear enough! 

BCV for Mary's "immaculate" conception please.

[mllevaleur]

BCV for Mary's "immaculate" conception please.

I'm sorry...is there some reason I need to quote the Bible in order to explain what I believe? 

As I said, my goal here is to clarify what I believe, not to prove that I'm right. That would take much more time than I have, as we'd have to go into authority and sola scriptura and all kinds of things. So, that's not my intention, I just want to explain what I believe, as misconceptions abound.

On top of that, it doesn't make a lot of sense for you to hold Catholics to your criteria for proof or authority of teachings, when they don't themselves claim to have the same criteria. That's like asking a Muslim to prove what he believes is true using only the Bible. As I said previously:

Remember that Catholics don't extrapolate verses from scripture and build their teachings on them, we believe God gave us His Word both Orally and in Scripture. Some teachings that have been handed down orally (and kept free from error by the power of the Holy Spirit) are not explicit in scripture, but they are implicit, and they never contradict scripture. We do not hold to sola scriptura, so saying "That's not in the Bible!" doesn't mean much, as we do not claim everything we teach is explicitly in scripture. We do claim it doesn't contradict scripture.

So, I could understand asking for BCV if I held to sola scriptura as others here do, and claimed that the the Immaculate Conception is something clearly explained in Scripture, and was attempting to prove this. But have done nor claimed any of those things...all I've said is, I'm trying to explain what I believe. With my understanding of scripture, the Immaculate Conception in no way contradicts it, and as I don't hold to sola scriptura it's not necessary for everything I believe to be spelled out in scripture, as I also hold to, what I believe is equally as inspired and protected Oral teachings alongside the written ones.

[CSloan]

BCV for Mary's "immaculate" conception please.

I'm sorry...is there some reason I need to quote the Bible in order to explain what I believe? 

We do claim it doesn't contradict scripture.

How can you prove a belief doesn't contradict Scripture, if you can't even prove it from Scripture?

Isn't that something like doublespeak?

[marc]

re Oral traditions...

Those church fathers must've been talking awful loud for people to still hear them today.

Otherwise, we've got a game of what we used to call "gossip"...one person whispers to the next....and what comes around is nothing like it was in the beginning....

sorry.  I know how useless this kind of discussion is.  I would say briefly, though, that in one of your earlier posts you suggested the top reasons why "fundamentalists" didn't believe in the immaculate conception.  Gary's objection is much nearer the mark.  Perhaps listening instead of telling him why his remark is invalid might help you understand the real reason.

[marc]

Sorry.  broach was the person who said

Fundamentalists' chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary's consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

The real chief reason, as has been pointed out, is that this concept is extra-Biblical.

[Volkmar]

CSloan wrote;

Are you kidding, you consider this a solid argument? Jesus couldn't be born to a sinner, because he would have had "original sin" [another false doctrine]? Jesus was made in the likeness of sinfull flesh. (Romans 8:3) Yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15) Wheres the problem?

"Original sin" is not "another false doctrine"...though I would say that the "age of accountability" notion is false.

Consider these statements by Paul;

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

(Rom. 5)

And, continuing in chapt. 5;

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

What made Jesus special was not so much that he lived a perfect, sinless life--though that is a great feat never before or since equaled--but rather it is the fact that Jesus is both wholly Deity and wholly human...a perfect knitting together that is possible only because of His connection to the Father.  To quote one of our friends previously of this discussion board;

What makes Jesus unique is not the fact that he overcame all temptations, a rather Pelagian view, but rather that he is wholly divine and wholly human, with his  humanity being wholly deified--without change, admixture, separation or division of his Person.

Nor is he our savior because he never sinned.  He is our savior because he unites, in his one Person, full divinity and full humanity.  Even if each of us had never sinned, we, as creatures, could not be united to God.  Only through Christ's bridging the gap between Creator and creature, can we truly be one with God (this is what Jesus is talking about in John 17, for instance).

This moralistic view that somehow Jesus saves us because he never sinned is very problematic.  For if that is the basis for our salvation, then any human could have saved us, and there was no need for God to be incarnate.

(CDHealy, 1/17/2007)

I don't think the theory of the "Immaculate Conception" of the Theotokos/Mary is necessary in view of what John said in Jn. 1:12-13;

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

Jesus, the Incarnation of God, was not born "of human decision or a husband's will", rather, Jesus Christ was "born of God".  And to this the Gospel accounts give witness.  Statements from Matt. 1:18 and 20 make this most clear.

...she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit...what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

What is born/begotton from/of God and His Spirit is not "of sin".  What is born/begotton from/of man is always tainted with the sin of our first ancestor Adam.

The Immaculate Conception was not dogmatized until 1854 by Pius IX.  Prior to that Catholics were free to believe it or not without being accused of heresy.

The basic problem with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it is an un-necessary theory in view of clear, Biblical statements.

V

[CSloan]

Volkmar,

Look at Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So much for that.

[mllevaleur]

BCV for Mary's "immaculate" conception please.

I'm sorry...is there some reason I need to quote the Bible in order to explain what I believe? 

We do claim it doesn't contradict scripture.

How can you prove a belief doesn't contradict Scripture, if you can't even prove it from Scripture?

Isn't that something like doublespeak?

No, it's not doublespeak at all. The fact that something is not mentioned explicitly in scripture does not make it ipso facto contrary to scripture.

For instance...would you say it's contrary to scripture that Jesus ever went to the bathroom? That's never mentioned in scripture...does that mean it is contrary to scripture? Of course not! Drinking Coke and watching TV are never mentioned in scripture...does that mean they are automatically contrary to scripture? Of course not!

The fact that something may be extra-biblical does not automatically make it anti-biblical, especially when you hold an extra-biblical source as authoritative. St. John himself tells us that Jesus did many things that weren't written down...if we follow the logic that says something that is not in the bible is anti-biblical, those things would have been anti-biblical. Obviously, that isn't the case.

[Volkmar]

Volkmar,

Look at Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So much for that.

;o)  Let's go back to English grammer 101...

"for that" refers back to what?  Well, it refers back to all of the idea expressed in the preceeding part of the sentence--by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin and because of that sin and death has been passed on to all men.  (Women never sin, so they are excluded from this..  ;o)  )

Notice Young's literal;

12because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;

We sin because Adam sinned.  That is "original sin".

V

[kensington]

As I said, my goal here is to clarify what I believe, not to prove that I'm right

But, don't you believe it because it is right?  If it is, then there should be Biblical proof to it.

BTW... you keep saying, you aren't explaining, going any deeper, and you are done with this... and yet, you keep posting to this.

And still there is no BIBLE proof of what the Church teaches.  You believe the church teaches truth, but have no BIBLE back up for this truth.  That makes no sense.  It it is indeed TRUTH, there should be BIBLE back up.

[kensington]

Or I guess the question could be...

If there is no Biblical back up to show that what you believe it the truth, then how do you know you are not believing a lie? 

[mllevaleur]

re Oral traditions...

Those church fathers must've been talking awful loud for people to still hear them today.

Otherwise, we've got a game of what we used to call "gossip"...one person whispers to the next....and what comes around is nothing like it was in the beginning....

We believe the Holy Spirit has guided Oral Tradition through the Church (the pillar and ground of Truth) and kept it free from error...much the same way we trust the Holy Spirit guided Written Tradition and kept it free from error as copy after copy was made, and different translations were made, etc. Surely keeping Oral Tradition free from error wouldn't be a big task for the Almighty God?

sorry.  I know how useless this kind of discussion is.  I would say briefly, though, that in one of your earlier posts you suggested the top reasons why "fundamentalists" didn't believe in the immaculate conception.  Gary's objection is much nearer the mark.  Perhaps listening instead of telling him why his remark is invalid might help you understand the real reason.

I see you realized it was broach, and not me, who posted that. By the way, I do believe that was not him speaking, but a quote from a Catholic source, so I'm sure it was not meant personally.

Even so, I'm not sure I understood your point.

[Nevertheless]

I see you realized it was broach, and not me, who posted that. By the way, I do believe that was not him speaking, but a quote from a Catholic source, so I'm sure it was not meant personally.

Even so, I'm not sure I understood your point.

Sorry.  broach was the person who said

Fundamentalists' chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary's consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

The real chief reason,[for objecting to the IC] as has been pointed out, is that this concept is extra-Biblical.

The point is that the chief objection is one you cannot surmount - the concept is extra-Biblical.

[CSloan]

Volkmar,

Look at Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So much for that.

;o)  Let's go back to English grammer 101...

"for that" refers back to what?  Well, it refers back to all of the idea expressed in the preceeding part of the sentence--by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin and because of that sin and death has been passed on to all men.  (Women never sin, so they are excluded from this..  ;o)  )

Notice Young's literal;

12because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;

We sin because Adam sinned.  That is "original sin".

V

Volkmar,

You are missing the point of the text because you are trying to make is support a false concept. The doctrine of original sin states that because of Adam's sin, sin passed to all men [inherited]. The passage clearly states that because of Adam's sin came into the world and death passed onto all men because of their personal sin(s).

Now notice the last part of the passage, which closes the thought. "for that all have sinned." Death passed to all men because all have sinned [personal responablity]. It doesn't get more plain than that.

[Harold]

That's like asking a Muslim to prove what he believes is true using only the Bible. As I said previously:

That is the reason we can have no meaningful dialog about the subject, or catholic doctrine.

FTL

[mllevaleur]

As I said, my goal here is to clarify what I believe, not to prove that I'm right

But, don't you believe it because it is right?

Of course I do! What I mean is, my goal is not to come here and try to convert people or make them agree with me. I'm ok with people disagreeing with me, as long as they understand my position accurately. What I don't like is people misconstruing my beliefs or spreading falsehoods about them (ie: Catholics worship Mary, etc). I can accept that our veneration of Mary is still seen as too much for some, and they disagree with that, but I will not stand by and see lies told about my faith, that the Church teaches Mary as equal to God, because that simply isn't true. So my goal is to clarify what I believe, not to convince people I'm right, even if, obviously, I think I am, as we all think we are.

If it is, then there should be Biblical proof to it.

That's assuming that the Bible is the only authority that we have. Many non-Catholic Christians believe this. Catholic Christians do not, we believe God gave us Oral Tradition, Written Tradition, and the Teaching Authority to correctly interpret both (what we call the Magisterium.)

BTW... you keep saying, you aren't explaining, going any deeper, and you are done with this... and yet, you keep posting to this.

I haven't said that for a while now, once I saw that things were going fairly civilly I decided to give it another try.

And still there is no BIBLE proof of what the Church teaches.  You believe the church teaches truth, but have no BIBLE back up for this truth.  That makes no sense.  It it is indeed TRUTH, there should be BIBLE back up.

Well there is plenty of scripture to back up our teachings, we just don't claim that each and every teaching is explicit in scripture, as we don't see the Bible as our only authority. We do claim that nothing the Church teaches (whether present explicitly in the Bible or not) contradicts scripture. Not all truth is spelled out in the Bible...after all, it is truth that humans have 46 chromosomes, and yet that isn't mentioned in the Bible. It's extra-biblical, but not anti-biblical. All things in the Bible are True, but not all Truth is in the Bible.

If there is no Biblical back up to show that what you believe it the truth, then how do you know you are not believing a lie? 

First, again, there needs to be a distinction made between having NO Biblical backup, and saying that the Bible isn't the final authority. Everything I read in the Bible supports my beliefs. Lots of stuff that didn't make sense to me in the bible before as a non-Catholic Christian now makes sense to me as a Catholic Christian. Oral and Written Tradition are woven together and are complementary to each other, they fit together like a puzzle. Saying that I don't believe everything the Church teaches is explicit in scripture does not mean nothing in scripture backs up my beliefs, or that what I believe is contrary to scripture. In the end, after researching and studying and praying (a lot) I came to believe that God did not just give us a book, but a Church as an authority.

I could ask you something similar...with so many different interpretations of the scriptures among Christians, how do you know that yours is correct, and is not a lie?

My own answer to that is, I believe God gave us an official interpretor, the Church, to make sure we understood His Word fully and completely and correctly, and that He guides that Church into all truth, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

[mllevaleur]

I see you realized it was broach, and not me, who posted that. By the way, I do believe that was not him speaking, but a quote from a Catholic source, so I'm sure it was not meant personally.

Even so, I'm not sure I understood your point.

Sorry.  broach was the person who said

Fundamentalists' chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary's consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

The real chief reason,[for objecting to the IC] as has been pointed out, is that this concept is extra-Biblical.

The point is that the chief objection is one you cannot surmount - the concept is extra-Biblical.

Oh ok, I see, thanks for clarifying.

It's neither here nor there for me, personally, whether it's the chief reason or no, so I have no reason to argue with you there. :-)

[mllevaleur]

That's like asking a Muslim to prove what he believes is true using only the Bible. As I said previously:

That is the reason we can have no meaningful dialog about the subject, or catholic doctrine.

FTL

The fact that we don't agree on where the final authority lies means that we can't even try to understand each others' view?

We'll just have to agree to disagree there.

[don has a plan]

It's difficult for people who are not "Bible only" Christians to communicate with "Bible only" Christians.  I'm not a "Bible only" Christian.  I think Scripture, tradition, reason--and, to some extent, experience--are all windows through which we can see God.  I think my Catholic friends approach their faith in that same way.

[CSloan]

It is a shame we all can't agree that God's Word is alone the final authority.

[Harold]

We sin because Adam sinned.  That is "original sin".

So then why did Adam sin?

Jer 31:30  But each person will die for his own sin. Whoever eats sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge. (GWT)

Not Adam's sin.

Eze 18:20  The person who sins will die. A son will not be punished for his father's sins, and a father will not be punished for his son's sins. The righteousness of the righteous person will be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be his own.

Not Adam's. Adam is the father of us all.

FTL

[marc]

mllevaleur and broach:

I got a little grouchier than intended in my posts.  Sorry.  I'll blame it on the kidney stone (which has moved about an inch and a half today).  I mean, it couldn't just be that I get grouchy sometimes....

In the end, my point is that you're not going to convince people who view the historical church as primarily human traditions that extra-Biblical material is authoritative, and we're not going to convince you of the opposite.  I think this gap is missed in many posts.  For instance, somewhere (I wouldn't swear it was on this thread or even on this board, but it possibly was) someone made the statement that Mary's assumption made sense because God wouldn't leave her to rot in the ground.  Those of us who disagree would return this by saying that this is the natural state of all mortals.  There is no way to bridge this gap without a religious worldview, if you'll pardon the expression, being changed.

In the end, it's good to remember that we all worship the same God and trust in the same Savior.  Neither side should be lumped in with Muslims and pagans (to get back to the topic of the thread), no matter how tempting it is to do just that.

[kensington]

That's assuming that the Bible is the only authority that we have.

"He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood and His name is called, "The WORD of God" ... Revelation 19:13

The BIBLE is the final authority above and beyond what man says.  That is absolute.

To know His WORD is to know Him.  To say that man can create more or give us better religion, is a lie.  It's just not truth.  

If there is no WORD to back up what you are living by in belief, you are not believing truth. His word is truth.  And absolute at that.  He and His WORD are the absolute authority on what we should believe. Anything else, is just falling for the words of man.

[Harold]

That's like asking a Muslim to prove what he believes is true using only the Bible. As I said previously:

That is the reason we can have no meaningful dialog about the subject, or catholic doctrine.

FTL

The fact that we don't agree on where the final authority lies means that we can't even try to understand each others' view?

We'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Heb 12:2  We must focus on Jesus, the source and goal of our faith. He saw the joy ahead of him, so he endured death on the cross and ignored the disgrace it brought him. Then he received the highest position in heaven, the one next to the throne of God.

He is my final authority.

FTL

[mllevaleur]

mllevaleur and broach:

I got a little grouchier than intended in my posts.  Sorry.  I'll blame it on the kidney stone (which has moved about an inch and a half today).  I mean, it couldn't just be that I get grouchy sometimes....

No problem ;-)

In the end, my point is that you're not going to convince people who view the historical church as primarily human traditions that extra-Biblical material is authoritative, and we're not going to convince you of the opposite. 

Oh I absolutely agree! That's why I was trying to make clear that I'm not here to convince or be convinced, I'm just hoping to understand and be understood. I enjoy dialogue with people of other beliefs, not so that I can change their views, just so that I can get a glimpse of their world view, and perhaps offer a glimpse of my own. So, when we both walk away having learned a little more about each other's views and come to understand them better (even if we still disagree in the end), that's what I call a productive dialogue. 

Now, certainly if people only discuss in order to convince or be convinced, well they're going to be disappointed a lot of the time!

I think this gap is missed in many posts.  For instance, somewhere (I wouldn't swear it was on this thread or even on this board, but it possibly was) someone made the statement that Mary's assumption made sense because God wouldn't leave her to rot in the ground.  Those of us who disagree would return this by saying that this is the natural state of all mortals.  There is no way to bridge this gap without a religious worldview, if you'll pardon the expression, being changed.

In the end, it's good to remember that we all worship the same God and trust in the same Savior.  Neither side should be lumped in with Muslims and pagans (to get back to the topic of the thread), no matter how tempting it is to do just that.

[mllevaleur]

It is a shame we all can't agree that God's Word is alone the final authority.

Oh I certainly agree with that! I just have a different definition of what God's Word is than you do...according to my beliefs, God gave us His Word both Orally and in Scripture. 

[mllevaleur]

That's assuming that the Bible is the only authority that we have.

"He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood and His name is called, "The WORD of God" ... Revelation 19:13

The BIBLE is the final authority above and beyond what man says.  That is absolute.

To know His WORD is to know Him.  To say that man can create more or give us better religion, is a lie.  It's just not truth.  

If there is no WORD to back up what you are living by in belief, you are not believing truth. His word is truth.  And absolute at that.  He and His WORD are the absolute authority on what we should believe. Anything else, is just falling for the words of man.

Right...as I just explained to CSloan, we understand "God's Word" to be composed of both written and oral tradition. So none of that contradicts what I believe. 

[Nevertheless]

It is a shame we all can't agree that God's Word is alone the final authority.

Even I will quibble with that statement.  God Himself is the final authority.