Fidelibus

Members
  • Content count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

48 Excellent

2 Followers

About Fidelibus

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Pacific Northwest
  • Interests
    Golf, Fishing, shooting, Study of Early Church History

Recent Profile Visitors

203 profile views
  1. But in Luke 1:6 it says: : "Both were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly." Both being Elizabeth and Zechariah - John the Baptist’s parents. This too was my way of thinking when I was a Protestant. However, in my conversion and relentless studies of Scripture, I looked up the Greek word for 'all' (pas) and found in it's semantic range the meaning, “all manner of.” Which means, Romans 3:23 does not really mean “all” as in every single person, it means “all manner of.” So, I could translate Romans 3:23, using your logic, as “For all manner of men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” In context, Paul is talking about Jew vs. Greek - “Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin,” (Romans 3:9). When Paul uses the word “all” here, he is not talking about individuals, he is showing that Jews - as a group - are no better than the Greeks when it comes to sin. So it seems the Catholic Churches interpretation is in line at this point. Which means, the word “all” does not necessarily refer to Mary as having sinned. And, the Bible actually translates the word “pas” in this manner - 11 times! So you see Shiloh357, If you want the context of this entire passage from Romans 3, you need to look to the Old Testament so that you don’t “topicalize.” In Romans 3:10-12, Paul is quoting from Psalm 14 and/or Psalm 53. In those Psalms, Paul states there is none that do good, no not one; that “all” have gone astray; all have fallen away. So, does that mean every single person? No, because the context of Psalms 14 and 53 is that there are the evildoers, the sons of men - those who deny God - and there are the people of God, the generation of the righteous. And it is about those who deny God that the psalmist says “all” have gone astray. In other words, the Old Testament, biblical-wide context for this passage of Romans, is that the word “all” simply does not mean every single person ever. If you miss the Old Testament context of the passage, then you miss the New Testament context of the passage, which you (and others) have done. Again, to address this, I would fall back to my first "scriptural" argument to state that the Bible nowhere says, "Mary sinned." Nowhere. So, if you want to use the Bible to say that Mary did indeed sin, it would be, at best, an indirect argument from Scripture. Also, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit his entire life, even from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). Do you contend that he sinned? Have a Blessed Holy Thursday!
  2. Thank you Davida for your reply, but I must respectfully disagree. When Protestant like youself, I too believed this. However, the truth was revealed to me through years of study/prayer and the Holy Spirit that this was not the case at all. The Church is not a mere "organization." The Church is made up of the believers, some of whom have been called into the ministerial priesthood. The Church, unlike Protestant churches I attended, it is not a man-made entity. It is a Divine entity, established on earth by Jesus Christ, Son of God. Not by mere men like Martin Luther (Lutherans), John Calvin (Calvinists), John Smythe (Baptists), John and Charles Wesley (Methodists), etc. Again, I must respectfully disagree. When Protestant like youself, I too believed this. However, the truth was revealed to me through years of study/prayer and the Holy Spirit that this was not the case at all. Could you show me using Sola Scriptura where it say's this in the bible? Please Davida, yelling at me that I defected is unnecessary for that's not what happened at all. I attended many different Protestant churches, ending in a non-Denominational church, with all of them claiming to be "strong bible teaching churches." While doing this, I became confused by....... if they all were teaching from the same bible, why was there so many different beliefs in/about the bible? One church would believe in infant Baptisim, and the other would not. One would embrace same sex marriage, and the other would not. One would be okay with abortion, and the other would not. Can you see how one would wonder how these self proclaimed strong bible believing churches,all preaching to be guided by the Holy Spirit can differ so much? This is one of the reasons I looked deeper into Church history, there had to be some sort of authority, surly Jesus wouldn't have left us a church (singular) with such division. Lo and behold, and to my dismay, my studies led me to the pre-Reformation church fathers and the church that was fifteen hundred years before any Protestant/non-denomination was in exsistance. And that Church was the Catholic Church..... 100%! Did I like what I found? No way....I didn't want to believe it, and for awhile I wouldn't! But some thing ( the Holy Spirit) kept pulling me back to look futher into what was missing, and that was the Catholic Church. That is the short of my conversion (not defection) David. In closing Davida, I posted some bible passages in my reply to Shiloh357 that I felt pointed to a physical church, (Matt 18:17, Acts 20:28, Acts 20:17) and asked how are these verses to be understood of an invisible Church? Shiloh357 didn't adderss them, would you? Have a Blessed Holy Week!
  3. I find it very interesting shiloh357 is quick to denounce the people of the Coptic Church that were massacred as non Christian, but in his interests, he is quick to defence of Israel who's main religion is Judaism. I would hope that Shihoh357 knows that Judaism does not warm up to Christianity to much. As a fact... Judaism doesn't believe that Jesus is God at all. What Judaism does believe is: Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies. Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah. Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the defence Israel, but that dosen't mean I have to agree with their beliefs of Christianity. I would be curious to hear Shiloh357 take on Judaism's view of Jesus. Have a Blessed Holy Week
  4. Thank you Shiloh357, but please let Davida speak for herself. Anyway, what if her interpretation of this passage is incorrect? I am not saying this to be harsh, but she could be wrong, wouldn't you agree? When Protestant, I too believed in a invisible church, (minus your cult remark) but when studing Scripture further in the matter learnd that no-way would Jesus leave us an invisible church with no type of authority. Nowhere in my study of Scripture did I ever be find that the Church is invisible. What I did find was references in Scripture are everywhere which point to a visible Church. For example: "And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" -Matt 18:17. It would be silly to think that Jesus would establish His Church then make it invisible and inaccessible to us. If that were the case, where would one seek it to rule it, converse with it and lay complaints before it? Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." --Acts 20:28. When the Church sent St. Paul, and received him, when he confirmed it, ordained priests in it, assembled it, saluted it, wrote to it, and persecuted it, was this just in spirit? These were visible acts on both sides would you not agree? "And sending from Miletus to Ephesus, he called the ancients of the church" --Acts 20:17. It is the property of the Church to carry on the preaching of the Word of God, the Sacraments etc. How could this be called invisible? And then there is the passage in question, 1 Tim.3:15; "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." The pastors and doctors of the Church are visible, therefore the Church is visible. The pastors and their sheep must know each other. What kind of shepherd cannot see his flock? St. Peter was as to a pastor when Jesus told him, "feed my sheep", and so were the Apostles, and they are all visible. How are these verses to be understood of an invisible Church Shiloh? Sorry Shiloh357, like Davida, unless you consider your private interpretation to be infallible, you could be misunderstanding and misinterpreting this passage and could be in error, correct? I'm sorry, not only is this mean spirited, and nothing more than a personal opinion. I am surprised the moderators haven't called you on it. I have a feeling it it were reversed, I would be. Have a Blessed Holy Week.
  5. Thank you Davida for your reply. If you do not believe it to be a physical church, then what type of church do you say it is refurring too, and how do come to that reasoning/belief? (i.e. by what authority?) Back when I was a Protestant, I was taught and believed it was some sort of invisible church until my studies (to my surprise) led me to believe otherwise. Would this invisible church be your belief as well? Thank you.
  6. Thank you gdemoss for your reply and personal insight. As for Original sin and the fall of man,and the Catholic Churches teaching on it. I would suggest going online to see the official Catholic teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It would be to much to post, but I suggest looking at paragraphs 402-411. Maybe after you do that, we could continue our discussion on the fall of man. The reason for my not posting them is..... to be honest, if you are anything like myself, I tend to skip over extremly long posts. I know.... I know, I should read them. Oops! Also gdemoss, I'd like to address something you stated is the first paragraph; This statement make me think back to my days as a Protestant where I was taught and believed Mary was nothing more that a mere vessel. Do you believe this? However, what I came to learn in my conversion, this wasn't the case at all, mere vessels cannot give their considered consent for being used for their intended purpose. Take Lk.1:28 for example."And the angel came in unto her, and said, hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Ever hear of the word "kecharitomene?" The Greek title "full of grace" comes from it. It describes a "perfection" and "abundance" of grace. In other words, Mary was proclaimed by the angel to be with a perfection of grace, which was a very powerful statement. How can Mary be completely and perfectly with God's grace, yet still have sin left in her? Even some of the Fathers of Protestantism believed Mary to be without sin, especially if she was completely filled with God's grace. I just can't seem to find where in history where Protestants came to believe otherwise. Do you know when? Also, Have you ever noticed that Luke 1:28 happens to be the only place in the Bible where anyone is addressed with the important title of "full of grace?" I thought that was an interesting fact. In my conversion to Catholicism, my studies of the Immaculate Conception led me to Lk. 1:35: "the Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God." In this passage I came to learn it shows Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. Just think about it.... According to the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant was the pure and holy vessel that held the Ten Commandments (the Old Covenant). The Ark was so holy in fact, that if anyone where to touch it they could actually fall down and die! It was housed in the Holy of Holies, which was a perfectly clean place where the Jewish high priests could enter only once a year according to their law (Lev. 16:2-4). So how are Mary and the Ark related? The same language that describes God's "dwelling" place for the Old Ark is used again for Mary's overshadowing by the Holy Spirit. Put another way, the Old Ark held God's Ten Commandments and could not be touched by human hands because of its holiness. Mary, the New Ark, holds the New Covenant in her womb, which is Jesus Christ. How much holier is Christ than the Ten Commandments? It only makes sense that for Mary to hold God in her womb, she too would be completely pure and without any sin. With all due respect gdemoss, Scripture disagrees: "If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great..." ---1 Tim. 15-16. St. Paul is saying the Church is the pillar and bulkwrh of truth. What if I showed you where Scripture say's "No one seeks for God?" And thank you for doing the same. Have a Blessed Palm Sunday
  7. Hello Hazard. By Matthew’s reformulation of the Marcan question and reply (Mark 10:17) Jesus’ repudiation of the term “good” for himself has been softened. Yet the Marcan assertion that “no one is good but God alone” stands, with only unimportant verbal modification. What is your take on this passage?
  8. Thank you 4ld for your responce, but I'm not quite following what you meant. Back when you quoted Rom.3:23 my thoughts were you were implying that 'all' have sinned, means all have sinned, Mary included, no exceptions. Thats what made me wonder on your thoughts of Rom.3:11 where it states "no one seeks for God." So once again if I may........If "all have sinned" means that everyone, without human exception, has sinned, then "No one seeks for God," means that no one, without human exception, seeks for God. Yet, you say that you do seek for God. Which means one of the following must be true: 1) You were wrong and you do not seek for God in your life; or 2) You think the Bible is wrong when it says "No one seeks for God." Which is it? Are you not seeking for God in your life, or do you believe the Bible is wrong when it says "No one" seeks for God? Thanks!
  9. Excellent gdemoss, you do see for God. I asked a couple of questions of some folks that too said they were "seeking for God" but never replied, I am hoping maybe you will. Okay, lets go back to your post where you quoted Rom.3:23. So, the word "all" means every person who has ever lived, no exception - except for Jesus, correct? Now when I asked you if you were "seeking God." You said you were. Well,with all due respect, that is contrary to the Bible, at least, according to your interpretation of the Bible, because in Romans 3:11, it states the following: "No one seeks for God." If "all have sinned" means that everyone, without human exception, has sinned, then "No one seeks for God," means that no one, without human exception, seeks for God. Yet, you say that you do seek for God. Which means one of the following must be true: 1) You were wrong and you do not seek for God in your life; or 2) You think the Bible is wrong when it says "No one seeks for God." Which is it? Are you not seeking for God in your life, or do you believe the Bible is wrong when it says "No one" seeks for God?
  10. Thank you for your responce 4ldk. With this being said, could I ask you a question I've asked a few others on this forum? Do you seek for God? Or have you ever seeked for God?
  11. If this is directed towards me gdemoss, you are welcome. However I must correct you on the first sentence. Mary was preserved from sin at the time of her natural conception, not when Jesus entered her womb. It's called... "preservative redemption." John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15), and Mary was sanctified at her conception. It is no difficulty that Christ distributed the grace of Calvary some forty-five years or so before it happened, just as he bestows it upon us two thousand years after the fact. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that this gift was given to Mary, making her "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner! Before my conversion to the Catholic Church after being Protestant most of my life, I too struggled with the notion of Mary being without sin. But after much study in the history of Christianity and the early Church Fathers, I could no longer deny it. Even the founders of Protestantism adhered to the belief of May's sinlessness. I tell you what, that sure set me back in my chair learning that. I would hope that you would agree that God can "save" a person from a sin by forgiving them, or by providing them the grace never to fall into that particular sin. An ancient analogy is often useful to explain this: A person can be saved from a pit in two ways; 1. can fall into it and be brought out, or one can be caught before falling into it. Mankind is saved in the first manner, and Mary in the second. Both are saved from the pit of sin. If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him? With all due respect gdemoss, I have only been on Worthy a short time, but in that time, what I have noticed thus far, I believe you would be hard pressed to find an un-biased answer from former Catholics. Hopefully Gdemoss I may have shed some light on your mis-conception Would you agree that you could be in error here as well? Could I ask you gdemoss what you beleive is the the pillar and bulwark of the truth? Also, Do you seek God? Thanks!
  12. Hello Hazard, but I must disagree with you. In the fourth century St. Augustine wrote: “When it is a matter of sin we must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I will have no question, raised, owing to the honor due to our Lord.” St. Ephrem, also in the 4th century, taught very clearly the Immaculate Conception of Mary, likening her to Eve before the fall. The Oriental Churches celebrated the feast of the Immaculate Conception as early as the seventh century. When Pope Pius IX defined the Catholic doctrine in 1854 he gave, not a new truth to be added to Christian teaching, but merely defined that this doctrine was part of Christian teaching from the very beginning, and that it is to be believed by all as part of Christian revelation. 1. Mary is revealed to be "full of grace" in Luke 1:28. 2. Mary is revealed to be the fulfillment of the prophetic "Daughter of Zion" of Zech. 2:10; Zeph. 3:14-16; Isaiah 12:1-6, etc. 3. Mary is revealed to be "the beginning of the new creation" in fufillment of the prophecy of Jer. 31:22. 4. Mary is revealed to possess a "blessed state" parallel with Christ's in Luke 1:42. 5. Mary is not just called "blessed" among women, but "more blessed than all women" (including Eve) in Luke 1:42. 6. Mary is revealed to be the spotless "Ark of the Covenant" in Luke 1. 7. Mary is revealed to be the "New Eve" in Luke 1:37-38; John 2:4; 19:26-27; Rev. 12, and elsewhere. 8. Mary is revealed to be free from the pangs of labor in fulfillment of Isaiah 66:7-8. Sorry Hazard, am I missing it, but I don't see where this passage say's that Mary sinned. What passage are you refurring to that all of humanity is sinful? And I would also like to ask if you seek of God or ever seeked of God?
  13. As a former Protestant, I too thought along these same lines Hazard until much study of Scripture and early Church history showed me differently. Insofar as the sin of Adam involved the whole human race in condemnation Mary needed redeeming. But there are two ways of redeeming. God could allow one to be born in sin and then purify the soul by subsequent application of the merits of Christ, or He could, by an anticipation of the merits of Christ, exempt a soul from an actual contraction of original sin. Thus He exempted Mary from any actual inheritance of the sin, and she owes her exemption to the anticipated merits of Christ. In other words, she was redeemed by Christ by prevention rather than by subsequent purification.
  14. But will you admit, being fallible, you could be in error with your personal interpretation of this passage? That is unless you find your interpretation infallible. Pretty sure no Catholic believes they can attain heaven only through Mary. But at one time will you agree you where seeking God, correct? And what about those like warrior12 and Spock that admit they are seeking for God when Romans 3:11, say's "No one seeks for God.” Again, wouldn't that be contrary to the Bible, at least, according to their (your?) interpretation of the Bible, because in Romans 3:11, it states "No one seeks for God." Which brought up my next question, as for Rom 3:23.... if "all have sinned" means that everyone, without human exception, has sinned, then "No one seeks for God," means that no one, without human exception, seeks for God. Yet, they say that they do seek for God. Which means one of the following must be true: 1. They were wrong and they do not seek for God in their life; or 2. They think the Bible is wrong when it says "No one seeks for God." Which is it? Are they not seeking for God in their lives, or do you believe they think the Bible is wrong when it says "No one" seeks for God? I think you have the purpose of a pilgrimage all wrong. Going on a pilgrimage is not some aimless wandering, it is a journey with a purpose, and that purpose is to honor and worship God. This is the reason in a Christian pilgrimage. After the death and resurrection of the Incarnate God and the spread of Christianity, adherents felt a longing to tread in the footsteps of their Savior, His Holy Mother, and His chosen followers, the holy Apostles. Even in the early centuries, when millions of Christians were martyred for their Faith, the faithful flocked to the tombs of favorite saints to venerate their remains, sometimes at the risk of being martyred themselves. What were their motives? Basically it is knowing that in honoring His saints, they were honoring and worshiping God Himself. I don't think God finds that a waste of time.
  15. Hello giggling, When I was a Protestant my reaction would have mirrored yours thinking Catholics thought of Mary as being Queen over all things. However, after years of study before my conversion to Catholicism, and to my complete surprise, I found in the truth that in no way do Catholics "worship Mary." (every Catholic I asked confirmed it. Something you may want to do) I do not worship Mary, only God! I do find your quoting of only ten words from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) misleading. I suggest that you go back to the CCC and read (or even post) sections 963-975 paying special attention to section 970 before casting judgement.