Q: Do Catholics believe Mary to be sinless?

Yes.

And let me make it clear that by "Catholics", I obviously do not mean ALL
Catholics, but IF their beliefs are in line with the teachings of the Church,
then yes they do believe this.

I don't have all the information to back this up, as it's pretty heavy rooted in knowing Scripture, which I don't, so the only argument I have to support this right now is this:

We as Evangelicals (I'll still say "we", as this has been my upbringing, and I feel a kinship and bond with my Evangelical brothers)
freely accepted Eve's sinlessness up to the time of the fruit.
Now, let's think about that:
We're not talking immediately after her creation.
Time passed between her creation from Adam, not to MENTION
we accept that Adam was sinless up until Eve offered him the fruit.

I know, speaking for myself, I can't go an entire MINUTE without sinning,
at least in thought.

So if we're willing to accept Adam and Eve's sinlessness without even analyzing it, why can't we accept Mary's sinlessness, at least for argument's sake, to get to the next level of the discussion?

If anyone cares to comment on that, I'd love it, and I'd love to take this claim further!


Thanks!

Before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, yes they were sinless. It was obviously capable to them, because that is God's nature to give them free will, and we were made in his image. But when Adam sinned, mankind was there. I was there and so were you. Also, the bible says NOTHING about her being sinful. This is the biggest flaw of catholicism: They create a theory and then try to find it in scripture (if they even find it at all). What your supposed to do is look in scripture first and build from there. Mary was obviously sinful just like everyone else in the world. The amazing part that is supposed to be captured is that GOD was born through a person! God was born to a sinful world, he was born to a sinful and VERY low class town, and he was born to a sinful woman.

phe wrote:

Before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, yes they were sinless. It was obviously capable to them, because that is God's nature to give them free will, and we were made in his image.

O.K., we're together on this part.

Quote :

Also, the bible says NOTHING about her being sinful.

I'm assuming you meant sinLESS.
And I'm sure you're right.

Quote :

This is the biggest flaw of catholicism: They create a theory and then try to find it in scripture (if they even find it at all).

This is what I didn't want to see happen in this forum.
Please try not to put blanket statements on Catholicism, and let's just discuss certain aspects OF it.

Quote :

What your supposed to do is look in scripture first and build from there.

I know that's what we've been taught, but:
Who do you think "created" the Bible?
When was it put together?

Does the Bible come first, or did Church teachings come first?
The Church came before the Bible, as weird as that sounds, but it's true.
The Bible was assembled by Church leaders over a period of time.
How they decided what books would go in it was if they were in line with what the Church had been teaching, based on what Jesus told them to teach and what Jesus said.


One thing to keep in mind that surprised me was that Martin Luther talked about Mary's sinlessness a lot, as it was taken for granted that she WAS.

i dont see any reason why she would be sinless. what was your point?

phe wrote:

i dont see any reason why she would be sinless. what was your point?

So you're saying because P.B. doesn't see any reason Mary would be sinless, it simply cannot be?

LOL.


Again, who the heck are we to think we can interpret Scripture?

BeMyIcon wrote:

P.B.

Piss Boy?

BeMyIcon wrote:

Again, who the heck are we to think we can interpret Scripture?

Uh, BMI, I'm pretty sure we are supposed to interpret scripture. We aren't supposed to listen/follow to some dude in Italy blindly. We should question everything that comes to us and check scripture for its accuracy. To check scripture, you must in fact *gasp* interpret it into our own means.



For more information on the matter, check out the book of Revelation.

47.5 wrote:

Uh, BMI, I'm pretty sure we are supposed to interpret scripture. We aren't supposed to listen/follow to some dude in Italy blindly. We should question everything that comes to us and check scripture for its accuracy. To check scripture, you must in fact *gasp* interpret it into our own means.

I thought we went through this in the "Which Came First?" argument.
If the Church put the Bible together as we've both agreed it did,
HOW did they put it together?
Answer: by putting books in there that were aligned with the teaching of the Church, meaning they already had a "doctrine".

If every person interprets Scripture how he/wants, aren't we going to have billions of ways to interpret it?

It seems like a no-brainer to me.
If the Church put it together, the Church should interpret it, unless you feel that each person should be able to also create his/her own Bible.

And it's not about blindly "following some dude in Italy".
Good grief.
Way to totally bash the oldest religion in the world.
I think you know that reducing it to that is pretty ridiculous.

BeMyIcon wrote:

I thought we went through this in the "Which Came First?" argument.
If the Church put the Bible together as we've both agreed it did,
HOW did they put it together?
Answer: by putting books in there that were aligned with the teaching of the Church, meaning they already had a "doctrine".

The people that put the Bible together were messed up. Leaving out any part of the Bible was wrong. Really wrong.

BeMyIcon wrote:

If every person interprets Scripture how he/wants, aren't we going to have billions of ways to interpret it?

Well on the other hand, if we don't interpret it ourselves and leave it up to someone else we may end up with the wrong interpretation. If we have only one interpretation and we don't question it, we get way off track.

BeMyIcon wrote:

It seems like a no-brainer to me.
If the Church put it together, the Church should interpret it, unless you feel that each person should be able to also create his/her own Bible.

The Church back when the Bible was put together was corrupt and even took advantage of no one interpreting it on their own. This led to many things including Indulgences and a little thing that is usually referred to as the Crusades. If you give any organized group an extreme amount of power (the ability to say what the Bible means), they use that power for their own benefit.

BeMyIcon wrote:

And it's not about blindly "following some dude in Italy".
Good grief.
Way to totally bash the oldest religion in the world.
I think you know that reducing it to that is pretty ridiculous.

yeah sorry I'm bad about bashing Catholics. I almost failed an oral project at school for doing it.

47.5 wrote:

The people that put the Bible together were messed up. Leaving out any part of the Bible was wrong. Really wrong.

Huh?
That doesn't make any sense.
How could they "leave something out" if it wasn't even created yet?
Protestants are the ones who took books out.
LOL.

Quote :

Well on the other hand, if we don't interpret it ourselves and leave it up to someone else we may end up with the wrong interpretation. If we have only one interpretation and we don't question it, we get way off track.

That's the whole point.
There IS no "right" interpretation.
There is the teaching of the Church.
The way you're talking, you're agreeing with me.
The Bible is a group of stories, and taking it ALL literally (solo scriptura or whatever), I believe is not the way to do it.
I mean, on whose authority are we deciding on "Scripture Alone"?
Our own?
LOL.
Talk about ego.
Jesus never even said that.
Also, thinking that EVERYTHING is "just a story" is equally as ridiculous.

Case in point:
You, as an evangelical, are probably subscribing to the "Scripture Alone" idea.
How do you defend that when it was The Catholic Church who put the Bible together?

Quote :

The Church back when the Bible was put together was corrupt and even took advantage of no one interpreting it on their own. This led to many things including Indulgences and a little thing that is usually referred to as the Crusades. If you give any organized group an extreme amount of power (the ability to say what the Bible means), they use that power for their own benefit.

I agree with you.
What does that have to do with matters of Faith and Truth today?

BeMyIcon wrote:

Huh?
That doesn't make any sense.
How could they "leave something out" if it wasn't even created yet?
Protestants are the ones who took books out.
LOL.

The books were already written, the Catholics compiled all of them and put them together (they also left the ones out that they didn't agree with and they also changed some to fit what they wanted us to believe).

BeMyIcon wrote:

That's the whole point.
There IS no "right" interpretation.

there are multiple interpretations for books like Revelation, but for the most part you can get the main point of any other book if you just look at it.

BeMyIcon wrote:

There is the teaching of the Church.

I'd like to stay with what seems logical to me. Plus, you are trying to make the Church's infallibility a truth. Would you like to explain what Purgatory is? Or how about Indulgences? Or maybe you can tell me if you believe the Gap theory, the Day Age theory, or in the ways of the Armenians? There are so many things that can be debated in the Bible and sometimes, the Church does have a mistake.

BeMyIcon wrote:

The way you're talking, you're agreeing with me.

Actually I was saying the opposite of what you were saying. I'm saying if we look through everything ourselves and check multiple theories on everything before deciding what we believe, we have a much better chance of getting it right.

BeMyIcon wrote:

The Bible is a group of stories, and taking it ALL literally (solo scriptura or whatever), I believe is not the way to do it.

I never said to take the Bible literally. I said decide on what it means yourself.

BeMyIcon wrote:

I mean, on whose authority are we deciding on "Scripture Alone"?
Our own?
LOL.
Talk about ego.
Jesus never even said that.

Ego? I'm actually thinking that if you don't investigate everything for yourself and make sure you believe what you're supporting, you may associate yourself with something you don't even know the meaning of. Doing this may sometimes turn you hypocritical which seems to be a major flaw of the Catholic church anyway.

BeMyIcon wrote:

Also, thinking that EVERYTHING is "just a story" is equally as ridiculous.

I'd have to say I agree with that, however, you bringing up random points we both agree with won't win you this. But while we're at it, I'll just say that Jesus was a great man. You agree with that one right?

BeMyIcon wrote:

Case in point:
You, as an evangelical, are probably subscribing to the "Scripture Alone" idea.
How do you defend that when it was The Catholic Church who put the Bible together?

They didn't write the Bible; they compiled already existing books. These were written by God-inspired men. Men who cannot be wrong. The Church, however, is not God-inspired. It is an organized group of men with the same beliefs. Those beliefs happen to be the Word of God. This doesn't mean that they are infallible just because they compiled a book of the men who were infallible.

BeMyIcon wrote:

I agree with you.
What does that have to do with matters of Faith and Truth today?

Actually that has a major impact in the debate at the moment. That argument I just brought up showed that the Catholic church cannot always be trusted. They mess up sometimes too. I wouldn't want to trust my salvation in the hands of a possibly corrupt association. If what you find when you interpret the Bible is the same as their interpretations, then fine. If it is different, search into it and dig for the truth. This is too big a deal to just pass off to someone else when you can do it yourself with just a little work.

47.5 wrote:

The books were already written, the Catholics compiled all of them and put them together (they also left the ones out that they didn't agree with and they also changed some to fit what they wanted us to believe).

Correct.
I still don't see the problem.
But you're starting to come across as one of those people who really believe the Catholic Church is evil, in which case nothing I say is going to be good enough, so I don't know why I'm still responding.

Quote :

there are multiple interpretations for books like Revelation, but for the most part you can get the main point of any other book if you just look at it.

See, that's what I'm getting at.
YOU are deciding that there are "multiple interpretations" for books.
Says who?
Says you?
LOL.

Quote :

I'd like to stay with what seems logical to me.

Does Jesus rising from the dead seem logical to you?

Quote :

Plus, you are trying to make the Church's infallibility a truth.

I'm not trying to do that at all.
I just think that the Church is our best bet in this world as Christians.
Not everything in its history is tainted.
Sheesh.
What about Jimmy Swaggart or whatever his name was?
What about Jimmy Baker?
You're going to find corruption anywhere you look.
Much like the Starbucks thread, where you say take the good with the bad.
Or was it jbaby who said it?
Either way, that was your stance over there.
Why not here?

Quote :

Would you like to explain what Purgatory is? Or how about Indulgences? Or maybe you can tell me if you believe the Gap theory, the Day Age theory, or in the ways of the Armenians? There are so many things that can be debated in the Bible and sometimes, the Church does have a mistake.

I have no idea what you're talking about.
Why do those things matter?
You're taking the common perspective and argument of an evangelical against things that Catholics may or may not believe, so how can you "prove" that Catholics are wrong by pointing out that you don't agree with certain theories?
LOL.
You're talking in a circle with that one.

Quote :

Actually I was saying the opposite of what you were saying. I'm saying if we look through everything ourselves and check multiple theories on everything before deciding what we believe, we have a much better chance of getting it right.

You're reducing Scripture and its interpretation to the man-made Scientific Method.
Seems like thousands of years of tradition could get it better than a fifteen-year old (or 32-year old, for that matter)
asking a few friends, LOL.

Quote :

I said decide on what it means yourself.

That's what I'm talking about when I say "ego".
A lot of people believe that, so I'm not trying to single you out,
but you're the one posting here, LOL.
What makes you think you can interpret the Bible by yourself
better than Church leaders over thousands of years?

Quote :

Ego? I'm actually thinking that if you don't investigate everything for yourself and make sure you believe what you're supporting, you may associate yourself with something you don't even know the meaning of. Doing this may sometimes turn you hypocritical which seems to be a major flaw of the Catholic church anyway.

I seriously can't follow you in that paragraph.
If I am trying to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church,
but I don't know the meaning of something, I'm hypocritical?
Nope, can't follow you, sorry.

Quote :

I'd have to say I agree with that, however, you bringing up random points we both agree with won't win you this. But while we're at it, I'll just say that Jesus was a great man. You agree with that one right?

I'm not sure what it is I'm trying to win.

Quote :

They didn't write the Bible; they compiled already existing books. These were written by God-inspired men. Men who cannot be wrong.

Says who?
How can "The Word of God" exist as its own entity?
You never would have known about the Word of God
had it not been in the Bible, assembled by the Catholic Church.

And I again have not said that the Church is infallible.
I think you're assuming that I represent many of the misconceptions that evangelicals have about Catholics, and I don't.

Please don't group me in with what you feel to be the Catholic stereotype.




I'll let you respond, but I think I'm going to take a vacation from this sort of thread.

It's starting to become a religious argument extravaganza, and regardless of how one feels about one's "religion", I seriously doubt if Jesus would want anything to do with this.
And I'm speaking about myself; that's not an attack on you.

Lesson learned.

BeMyIcon wrote:

Lesson learned.

I guess it is better if we just quit now. I was having so much fun though