I’d prefer that –for a time– than tolerating fifty heretics telling the common people that being a good Catholic has nothing to do with listening to the bishops.

Chris_Balsz on November 26, 2009 at 8:24 PM

The price they pay is less influence within the Dem party on other issues. If it moves the needle on the abortion issue, then it will be worthwhile for them. However, if Dem officials don’t change on abortion but decrease their attention to other Catholic Church priorities then they won’t benefit. However, the Church is bigger than just the U.S. and operates with very long time horizons.

But those who would be in office would indeed be Catholic, not merely identifies as Catholic.

unclesmrgol on November 26, 2009 at 3:13 PM

There would just be fewer of them. The Church has decided to head down a path where it is smaller and purer in the U.S. Benedict and JPII have acknowledged that dynamic.

And you can count on any post on Catholicism belching up anti-Papist hateyness, these days.

I haven’t seen a post by a Catholic here, nor have I ever heard a Catholic ever say Jesus was sinful, as it’s blasphemy. You really spun a web in order to deceive!

If you’re interested in what we teach you can find it in the Catechism:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Here’s what heavyweight St. Thomas Aquinas had to say in his Summa Theologica (Baptism) 800 yrs ago:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4039.htm#article1Tertullian

Heavyweight – St Augustine 400 A.D. wrote “On Baptism, Against the Donatists” (he wrote seven books on Baptism alone):
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1408.htm

You say we’re “completely separate”. I say there’s nothing new under the sun.

As St Augustine explained in his opening:

“…for the refutation of the Donatists, and for shutting their mouths directly from upholding their schism against the Catholic Church…”:

Some food for thought…1600 yrs later.

You say we’re “unbiblical”. Now that really is “crazy” – where do you think you got the Holy Bible?

PS: The writings of St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine are truly worth a read.

ALLAH: I’m sympathetic to Matthews’s broader point about not letting any faith dictate the content of secular law

That argument has never made sense to me. Laws are clearly based on what we believe to be absolute, undeniable rights and wrongs. What atheist moral value has ever lead to the creation of law?

I just don’t believe you can live in an accidental universe on an accidental planet in the form of an accidental cancer that accidentally mutated over billions of years from mud to become what you are today, a creature without ultimate purpose or meaning or any true reason for being outside of your DNA’s desire to replicate itself so it can form more accidental creatures in a cold, uncaring universe, and then say what you think is right and wrong. You clearly get your right and wrong from religions throughout history, as they purport to know you are NOT an accident, and that your life has true ultimate meaning and purpose.

Atheists can too easily argue ‘hey, we’re all a result of a blind accidental process of evolution that has no purpose, which means our lives have no meaning that exists outside of our own accidentally evolved minds, so let’s get stoned and have sex, and just be merry until we die and cease to exist.’ I would totally respect an atheist who made that statement, as it fits with their overarching and inevitable view of the universe.

Point is- there’s truly no such thing as secular law that is totally disconnected from religion. Without religion, which attaches ultimate meaning to our universe, right and wrong is meaningless, which means laws would be meaningless too. You simply cannot fully separate the two.

Calling Mary a sinner, which the Bible does and makes NO exception for her, is insulting Jesus?

. . . Simply put, the sinlessness of Mary is not at all a Biblical concept.

Grafted on November 26, 2009 at 6:13 PM

Romans 3:20-24:
“since no human being will be justified in his sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus,”

“all have sinned.”

Was the purpose of St. Paul’s sentence to say that every human who ever was born has sinned? No, he saying there is “no distinction” among men who follow the law and men who don’t. That the law is not what makes a man righteous. It is faith in Christ. We are “justified freely by his grace.”

And Mary was justified by His grace. Jesus was her Savior. “My soul rejoices in God my Savior.” (Luke 1:47) We believe He saved her, by the merits of Jesus Christ, before sin touched her soul (at the moment of her conception, not before and not after), The rest of us He saved after sin touched our souls. A timing difference.

(You may have heard the story of the man walking down a road who falls in a puddle of mud. A man reaches down and helps him up and cleans him up. Another woman walks down the same road and as she is about to fall into the mud, the man puts out His arm and catches her before she falls in. He is still the Savior of both people, He has saved them both from the mud.)

Is it true that “ALL have sinned?” Was this to be taken literally or as a way of speaking. Like when someone says, “all the people at the concert loved it” or “all politicians are liars” or a child said, “everyone is going.”

We know Jesus didn’t sin. So already it doesn’t mean “all.” You can say that is obviously implied. Well, maybe Mary was obviously implied to Paul and those who read it back then.

What about infants and very young children who die early? Have they sinned? The angels in Heaven haven’t sinned and God created them sinless. Couldn’t God create a woman that way? And since God is outside of time and space and can do all things, He could create that woman and give her this gift by the merits of Jesus Christ even before He died on the cross. By His grace.

“All” meant GENERAL HUMANITY. Our human condition. Not every single person ever born without exception. God can create exceptions. And Mary could have been one (as Jesus was another) and Paul’s statement would still be true as far as general mankind.

As one of my fellow Catholics has already said, the Bible does not name Mary anywhere as having sinned. And the early writings in the Church, East and West, say they believed Mary was sinless and pure. Actually the first writings about her in the early 100’s AD call her the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant. (Like other faithful Catholics here have mentioned. Because she held the Word of God made flesh, the Bread from Heaven and our High Priest forever, like the Old Ark held the Word of God, manna from Heaven and the top of the staff of the high priest, Aaron. She was also carefully crafted by God to His specifications, like the old Ark.)

God bless you all.

You claim the Bible calls Mary a “sinner” and yet nowhere does it state such. Indeed, it says the opposite: that She was “Full of Grace.” . . . . For while that is true, none of us are worthy enough to claim the Holy Spirit overshadowed us creating the Incarnate Word to physically dwell within for nine months. . . . And since you are to be like Jesus, who followed the 10 Commandments and honored His Mother for 33 years on Earth, why do you think you can dishonor Her?

simeon on November 26, 2009 at 6:43 PM

3 very true and Biblical statements. She is “the woman” of the Bible, from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation Chapter 12. The “woman” from St. John’s Gospel, at the beginning of His earthly ministry at Cana to the end of it at the cross.

Thank you, to you and the others here who have defended the Church’s Biblical truths and Our Blessed Mother.

Stuff and nonesense.

Catholic politicians will give up the church before they give up their careers. The Church can succeed in getting unanimity on its position, but given that it opposes abortion from the point of conception, even in cases of rape and incest, it could end up with very few practicing Catholics in elected office.
dedalus on November 26, 2009 at 9:43 AM

I’d prefer that –for a time– than tolerating fifty heretics telling the common people that being a good Catholic has nothing to do with listening to the bishops.

simeon on November 26, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Truly stunning. Calling Mary a sinner, which the Bible does and makes NO exception for her, is insulting Jesus? Wow. The Protestant Reformation was not reforming Christianity, but actually reclaiming it. In no way was the state of the Catholic Church more Biblical than what the reformers pursued.

Wileygrl3 on November 26, 2009 at 12:29 AM

Not to speak for God here, but don’t expect Him to ask you why you believed Mary was sinless.

dthorny on November 26, 2009 at 12:16 AM

The Hebrews passage concerns the priestly order of Christ according to Melchizedek, and it establishes a headship view of mankind, which indeed involves the imputation of sin.

Simply put, the sinlessness of Mary is not at all a Biblical concept. It may be a teaching of the Catholic Church, but the Bible has not been the base of much of their doctrine.

I respect a great many of Catholic people, but not false doctrines.

Just wanted to chime in on two things being discussed here.

As to Mary’s Immaculate Conception and sinless life….

Mary was such due to the Grace of God through Jesus, just as every other human being before or since. The only difference between Mary and the rest of us is that Mary was given this grace upon her conception in order that she would be the pure vessel needed to carry Jesus in her womb. Remember that the punishment for touching the Ark was death, because the Ark was God’s throne and the center of His presence on earth.

Which leads us to why Mary is known as the Ark of the New Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant held manna(bread from heaven), Aaron’s rod, which though a stick budded overnight with flowers and almonds signaling God’s choice of Aaron a priest, and the Ten Commandments, written by the hand of God.

Jesus was all three of these things at once. He declared himself Bread of Life, He is the Word of God and His sacrifice on a stick brought forth eternal life, showing God choice of Jesus as High Priest.

Considering the reverence and strictures as to sanctity and purity of the Ark, who could deny that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant?

Lastly, the reason so many discussions of the Catholic faith devolves into debate over Mary is that Protestants use her as a way of justifying the fact that they will not accept the truth and authority of the Catholic Church.

dedalus on November 26, 2009 at 9:43 AM

But those who would be in office would indeed be Catholic, not merely identifies as Catholic.

It is amazing that they will admit Jesus is True God and True Man, but seem to forget the very 1st Commandment: “I AM a jealous God and thou shalt have no other gods before Me.”

Well, no one, ever, in the history of Catholicism has claimed that Mary is God or a goddess. But as the Mother of Christ, she has by the early Christians been honored as Jesus’ Mother and given the title “Mother of God.”

Now I don’t know about everyone, but as a human being, I, too, am jealous. And the first thing I am jealous of is my mother’s honor. I come from Brooklyn and if you insult my mother you are going to find a fist in your face.

Why do you protest-ants not see that Jesus as True Man feels the same way about His earthly Mother? What part of honor do you not understand? When you call Her a “sinner,” you are denigrating the Woman who gave birth to your God! Your “jealous” God.

We all must make choices, but I sure will take the safe path and not dishonor Mary rather than annoy Jesus. My advice for any protest-ant (and that’s what you are doing, protesting which is rebellion against all Christianity stood for and what the early martyrs died for) is if you don’t have something nice to say about Mary, than don’t say nothin’ at all. For She is, under Christ’s last will and testament, our Heavenly Mother. The Queen, who as He is the King of Israel, sits at His Right Hand (for these same protest-ants quote Scripture but never understand it in the light of Jewish tradition).

I would rather be like the Blessed Apostle John (and here protest-ants neglect the fact that John’s mother, Salome, is at the Cross when Christ speaks and what that means in Jewish tradition) and take Mary into my home and heart, rather than twist Scripture to deny Her and Christ’s command concerning Mary: “Behold, thy Mother!”

Happy Thanksgiving to all and thank You God for Your Mercy and blessings!

As for the sinlessness of Mary, if you don’t believe that, then how can you believe Jesus was FULLY MAN *AND* fully Divine?
Jesus inherited his humanity from Mary, as we inherit ours from our mothers. If Mary was tainted with Original Sin, then He would be also. She was FULL of grace. This doesn’t mean she didn’t need a Savior – she just needed Him to save her before she fell into the mud puddle of sin, whereas we need Him after.

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Look to the treatment of the Ark of the Old Covenant to see why this is significant.

Happy Thanksgiving and God Bless You!

ITS donkey piss.