Are these two great contradictions of the Catholic Faith

[Dash RipRock]

You are born in a fallen state.

Not true.

All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.

God did not make every baby to be a sinner.

 

[nedsk]

Not a Catholic but married to one. It seems to me a lot of distinctly Catholic theology does not scriptural backing but is built upon what previous church fathers have said and has become accepted as the gospel truth.



If Mary had two human parents, and there's no reason to believe otherwise, then she couldn't have been sinless. The reason why Jesus was sinless was because he didn't have two human parents, one was divine. God bypassed our sinful nature, which seems to be passed on through the male, by using Himself.

It all has Scriptural backing. Some people just disagree with the application of the text. That's not the same as saying there is no scriptural backing.

So you've determined God couldn't have created Mary sinless? Fascinating.

Btw the early church fathers were nothing if not Catholic

 

[Jericho]

So you've determined God couldn't have created Mary sinless? Fascinating.

Where do you find that in scripture?

Btw the early church fathers were nothing if not Catholic

Not all, and certainly not before the 3rd century.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

It’s not about whether God could have made Mary sinless — of course He could.
The issue is: Did He?
And where is that in Scripture?

There is zero biblical statement that Mary was immaculately conceived or lived without sin.
In fact, Scripture says the opposite:

“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” — Romans 3:23
Mary herself said:
“My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” — Luke 1:47
You don’t need a Savior unless you need saving.

As for the idea that “it all has scriptural backing” —
Let’s be honest: much of Catholic doctrine is backed by tradition first, then retrofitted with selective verses. That’s the exact opposite of exegesis.

Quoting early church fathers isn’t the same as quoting Scripture.
And calling them “Catholic” is a historical stretch — they didn’t pray to Mary, bow to statues, or teach papal infallibility.

If you want to believe the Marian dogmas, fine — but don’t pretend they’re plainly taught in Scripture.
They’re later theological developments, built on tradition layered over silence.

And when tradition contradicts Scripture —
We don’t bend the Word to fit the system.
We correct the system with the Word.

 

[BreadOfLife]

PLEASE REVIEW THE CATHOLIC TEACHING OF ROME

Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its " procreation " fertilization , to furthering the DNA - GENETICS to be passed down through a conception ...

II. The Vocation to Chastity # 2351

II. The Vocation To Chastity

www.vatican.va

Furthermore
Roman Catholic Father - St. Augustine, demands that “ Sexual desire a significant role in original sin's transmission, - sexual intercourse is the daughter of sin, is also the mother of sin ... LUST - Lust becomes causally involved in the transmission of original sin ...

Sexual lust thereby becomes not merely a symbol of carnal concupiscence, but its cause.

THIS IS WHAT CATHOLICISM TEACHES
Rome believes 2 things

1........ that Mary's Conception through sexual intercourse , " conceived in sexual intercourse " would have produced baby Mary who was born in Original Sin

God had to miraculously remove the stain of romance, lust, pleasure and the sin of intimacy and the stain , dirt and filth and evil introduced also by her fathers sperm

without this miracle, - the romance, lust, intimacy and togetherness and the man and wife bond and ejaculated seed would have passed Original Sin to Mary

2........ that Jesus Conception also , any lust or any sexual intercourse as husband and wife, any sexual pleasure, romance or intimate bonding between husband and wife - would have produced a baby Jesus who was born in Original Sin

both are the same Catholic Miracle - this is why the Priests and Vatican Primates and Nuns go through their entire lives hiding their sexuality and lust and sexual deeds from all of society they believe, teach and live lives to model and pattern a glorification that having a spouse or a husband or wife or any desire to have children would make them ungodly and unholy or move them further away from perfection and righteousness.,

just the thought of getting married and having husband and wife relations would terminate and completely end a priests or nuns position and rank and status in the church, marriage is a - career ending, shame, banishment from rank and a contract breaker...

a Mary - born with a miraculous cleansing of the husbands and wife lust, passion and intimacy and fertilization during their sexual intercourse

a Jesus - born with a miraculous Virgin birth, with no husband , no romance, no lust and no fertilization and no sex

Rome teaches a narrative that Mary retained and upheld and stayed faithful to the position of being free of sin because she remained a perpetual virgin.

had she not remained a virgin and became a wife and had children
she would have never been seen as without Original Sin

For one - Mary was conceived by parents who were corrupted by Original Sin. God, however, saved her at conception keep her from being stained by it. We see evidence of this in Luke 1:28.

The Greek word is kecharitomene used in Luke 1:28, which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with a permanent result. It translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” Kecharitomene is not a mere description here. It is used as a title.
The Angel didn’t say, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” He said, “Hail, Kecharitomene.”

Sanctification is a process (Rom. 6:19; Phil. 3:13–14, Phi. 1:6). Because we are sinners, we are not completely sanctified until we enter into Heaven.

As to Mary's virginity - the Scriptures point to this (Ezek. 44:2, Luke 1:34). Also, there is a LACK of Scriptural evidence that he did have children.

As to your problem with the Catechism’s teaching on lust – your comments are dishonest.
The Catechism states:
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

You condemn it because you claim it pigeonholes the sexual act as a vehicle for procreation ONLY.
That’s NOT what it says. It says, “… its procreative and UNITIVE purposes.”

Finally, and contrary to your claim – the transmission of Original Sin IS a mystery that we cannot FULLY understand. To say that you “fully” understand it is false. We have a general understanding based on what Scripture tells us - but we cannot know fully HOW sin is able to transmit from one person to another.

 

[nedsk]

Where do you find that in scripture?



Not all, and certainly not before the 3rd century.

I didn't say it was there what I said was, you've determined that God couldn't have created Mary sinless. I also don't see Sola scriptura or sola fide but I hear it from "Christians" all the time.

Well we could preempt them and go to Paul at 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

But i digress

Irenaeus
“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles” (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2)

Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Clement of Alexandria
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Just so you're not confused all pre 3rd century

 

[BreadOfLife]

It’s not about whether God could have made Mary sinless — of course He could.
The issue is: Did He?
And where is that in Scripture?

There is zero biblical statement that Mary was immaculately conceived or lived without sin.
In fact, Scripture says the opposite:
“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” — Romans 3:23
As for the idea that “it all has scriptural backing” —
Let’s be honest: much of Catholic doctrine is backed by tradition first, then retrofitted with selective verses. That’s the exact opposite of exegesis.

Quoting early church fathers isn’t the same as quoting Scripture.
And calling them “Catholic” is a historical stretch — they didn’t pray to Mary, bow to statues, or teach papal infallibility.

If you want to believe the Marian dogmas, fine — but don’t pretend they’re plainly taught in Scripture.
They’re later theological developments, built on tradition layered over silence.

And when tradition contradicts Scripture —
We don’t bend the Word to fit the system.
We correct the system with the Word.

This is the problem with strict Sola Scripturists.

You think that Rom. 3:23 includes Mary because of the word “All”. What, then, do you do with the following

Paul is actually quoting Psalm 14, where it says, "The fool (the wicked) says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt...there is none that does good.’”

Paul was using inclusive language, as was the Psalmist. This would be similar to somebody saying that “everybody in town” came to the celebration. The mass of mankind is what is being referred to in these passages – NOT every individual human being ever born. Otherwise, you would have to include Jesus, who was born a human like the rest of us. God can – and DOES make exceptions.

Another example is in Matt. 2:3, where we read that Herod was “greatly troubled” when he heard about the birth of a new King – “… and ALL of Jerusalem with him.”

“ALL“ would include EVERY single person in Jerusalem including babies. Do you really think that babies were “greatly troubled” by the Magi’s message??

Mary herself said:
“My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” — Luke 1:47
You don’t need a Savior unless you need saving.

Nobody EVER said that Mary didn’t need a Savior. She DID.

God simply completed her sanctification at conception. For the rest of us – it is a lifelong process (Rom. 6:19; Phil. 3:13–14, Heb 12:14 ).

 

[Jericho]

I didn't say it was there what I said was, you've determined that God couldn't have created Mary sinless. I also don't see Sola scriptura or sola fide but I hear it from "Christians" all the time.

That is an argument from silence, isn't it? We can't go on what we don't know, only what we know. Anything else is speculative and can lead to erroneous conclusions. I'm not sure if your issue is with Mary being sinless or not or Sola scripture, but they're two separate issues.

Just so you're not confused all pre 3rd century

Communion, or the Eucharist if you prefer, is not solely a Catholic thing. The precedence was already set by Jesus during the Last Supper.

 

[nedsk]

That is an argument from silence, isn't it? We can't go on what we don't know, only what we know. Anything else is speculative and can lead to erroneous conclusions. I'm not sure if your issue is with Mary being sinless or not or Sola scripture, but they're two separate issues.



Communion, or the Eucharist if you prefer, is not solely a Catholic thing. The precedence was already set by Jesus during the Last Supper.

No you're attributing things to me that I never said. You're just sleeping rote responses you've been trained to mimic. You don't imagine this is my first rodeo with you cowboys is it? You all do this. You make claims about things without any evidence. Now either show me where I said what you claimed I said or stop replying to me.

 

[Aunty Jane]

This is the problem with strict Sola Scripturists.

What then is the problem with those who deny Sola Scriptura?
If Paul stated 2 Timothy 3:15-16…..
”All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in uprightness, so that the man of God may be proficient and equipped for good work of every kind.” (NCB)

Was there provision in his statement for additional teachings that cannot be found in what the first Christians used as their Scripture? The Scripture Jesus used to prove his identity was the OT.

Where will I find ANY teaching of the Catholic church that promotes Mary as the “mother of God” in God’s word. She barely rates a mention, though no doubt she was a fine woman, but not sinless, as no scripture ever says so.…not even a hint of an “immaculate conception” because there was no need of one, except for Jesus.

Mary offered a sin offering at the Temple after Jesus birth…..can you tell me why? (Scripturally)
(Lev 12:1-4, 8; Luke 22:22-24)

You think that Rom. 3:23 includes Mary because of the word “All”. What, then, do you do with the following

Why did Mary need to be sinless if it was God who implanted the embryo who became the human child born to her?
Neither her DNA, nor Joseph’s could have produced a sinless child. It was the child who had to be born sinless, not his mother…..or how far do you need to go back in Mary’s lineage to find other sinless women? Mary’s mother? Her grandmother? How far fetched do you need the story to be to prop up thinly disguised mother goddess worship, which was rife in paganism? All of her titles can be traced back to these false goddesses.

Paul is actually quoting Psalm 14, where it says, "The fool (the wicked) says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt...there is none that does good.’”

Paul was using inclusive language, as was the Psalmist. This would be similar to somebody saying that “everybody in town” came to the celebration. The mass of mankind is what is being referred to in these passages – NOT every individual human being ever born. Otherwise, you would have to include Jesus, who was born a human like the rest of us. God can – and DOES make exceptions.

Another example is in Matt. 2:3, where we read that Herod was “greatly troubled” when he heard about the birth of a new King – “… and ALL of Jerusalem with him.”

“ALL“ would include EVERY single person in Jerusalem including babies. Do you really think that babies were “greatly troubled” by the Magi’s message??

You have to do a lot of tap dancing to get those verses to say what you want them to mean. That was the whole point of the RCC keeping the Bible out of the hands of the people…they had no way to do what the ancient Beroeans did…..They examined the scriptures to make sure that what Paul was teaching, was the truth. (Acts 17:11) Catholics had no way to do that….and faced severe penalties if they did.

You have to be an indoctrinated Catholic from birth, or have absolutely no knowledge of Scripture to subscribe to Catholic doctrine….none of which is scriptural.

Nobody EVER said that Mary didn’t need a Savior. She DID.

If she was sinless, then Jesus wasn’t her savior…he came to give his life for sinners….and Mary’s offering after his birth shows that she knew her sinful condition like every other woman who had given birth, she was “unclean” for the required period of time after his birth.

God simply completed her sanctification at conception.

Where will I find that teaching in any “Christian” church aside from Catholicism?
Why was there a need for a Reformation after centuries of getting away with murder….literally.

Anyone who knows their Bible, knows why the RCC does not advocate for Sola Scriptura…and why there is no resemblance in their teachings and practices to those that originated from Jesus Christ and his apostles.…who did not elevate his mother over anyone else….and did not advocate a single thing that the Catholic Church teaches as doctrine.

 

[Jericho]

No you're attributing things to me that I never said. You're just sleeping rote responses you've been trained to mimic. You don't imagine this is my first rodeo with you cowboys is it? You all do this. You make claims about things without any evidence. Now either show me where I said what you claimed I said or stop replying to me.

What did I attribute to you things you didn't say? I'm not even sure what your argument is anymore. You're all over the place.

 

[nedsk]

What did I attribute to you things you didn't say? I'm not even sure what your argument is anymore. You're all over the place.

Post #24. It always unfolds the same way with you folks. You can't follow things because you make stuff up like.sola scriptura

 

[Dan Clarkston]

If Mary had two human parents, and there's no reason to believe otherwise, then she couldn't have been sinless.

You're going to freak out all the catholics with your common sense!

 

[nedsk]

You're going to freak out all the catholics with your common sense! View attachment 63181

That's delusional not common sense. It's suggesting God couldn't have created Mary sinless.

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph of the House of David. The virgins name was Mary

The angel came to her and said, "Hail full of grace the Lord is with you." But she was greatly troubled by his words and wondered in her heart what this salutation can mean.

Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid Mary, for you have found favor with God."

 

[Dan Clarkston]

It's suggesting God couldn't have created Mary sinless.

Mary was not sinless. Only Jesus was.

This is why you people worship mary claiming she is equal with Jesus and is co-redeemer along with Jesus which is in error.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus not mary

 

[Dan Clarkston]

For your viewing pleasure!....The Virgin Mary Was NOT a Virgin Forever

 

[Dan Clarkston]

For your viewing pleasure!....Bowing to Mary Is Idolatry — Here’s the Biblical Proof

 

[Aunty Jane]

That's delusional not common sense. It's suggesting God couldn't have created Mary sinless.

God could have “created” Mary any way he wanted, but the thing is, Mary wasn’t created…she was born of sinful parents Iike everyone else….including John the Baptist, whose birth was also miraculous, like Isaac’s, to parents past the age of childbearing.
Neither Sarah nor Elizabeth were immaculately conceived in order to have a special child.

Can you tell us why God needed Mary to be sinless when the child born to her was not from this world?
God implanted the embryo in Mary’s womb….and he did not need a cell of her DNA to do it.

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph of the House of David. The virgins name was Mary

The angel came to her and said, "Hail full of grace the Lord is with you." But she was greatly troubled by his words and wondered in her heart what this salutation can mean.

Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid Mary, for you have found favor with God."

Having “found favor with God” is a far cry from “immaculate conception”. The church made it all up in order to adopt the pagan mother goddess worship that the devil planted in false worship. It was a corruption of the truth, and not biblically based at all.

Look how far back it goes…..


Is this just coincidence?

 

[Scott Downey]

That's delusional not common sense. It's suggesting God couldn't have created Mary sinless.

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph of the House of David. The virgins name was Mary

The angel came to her and said, "Hail full of grace the Lord is with you." But she was greatly troubled by his words and wondered in her heart what this salutation can mean.

Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid Mary, for you have found favor with God."

Noah also found favor with God as did Abraham, were they also sinless?
They were forgiven and blessed, same as Mary. Their sin was not imputed to them. They God considered righteous apart from works.

Romans 4

Abraham Justified by Faith​

1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father[a] has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was [b]accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted [c]as grace but as debt.

David Celebrates the Same Truth​

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”

 

[Scott Downey]

Romans 4

16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be [d]sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; 18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.