Why Mary Was Sinless

[Mr.Cat]

[b]Post 2 of 2[/b]
The phrase "[i]κεχαριτωμένη[/i]" is used to the Blessed Virgin which does not translate to "highly favored" but rather it translates to "full of grace." Moreover the word used for Saint Stephen the Martyr is "[i]πίστις[/i]" so in no way is it "full of grace" and even in the King James version it is written that he was "full of faith and power."[quote]κεχαριτωμένη is a compound word with these characteristics: verb, perfect tense, passive, participle, singular, nominative and feminine. It is also the SOLE instance that χαρις appears in the Bible in this form.

Verb
■ n. Grammar a word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as run, become, or happen.
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Perfect Tense: Grammar (of a tense) denoting a completed action or a state or habitual action which began in the past, formed in English with have or has and the past participle, as in they have eaten.
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Passive: 2 Grammar denoting a voice of verbs in which the subject undergoes the action of the verb (e.g. they were killed as opposed to he killed them). The opposite of active.
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

participle
■ n. Grammar a word formed from a verb (e.g. going, gone, being, been) and used as an adjective or noun (as in burnt toast, good breeding) or used to make compound verb forms (is going, has been).
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Singular: 1 Grammar (of a word or form) denoting or referring to just one person or thing.
† single; unique.
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Feminine: 2 Grammar of or denoting a gender of nouns and adjectives, conventionally regarded as female.
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

In short, the Greek indicates Mary is in an ongoing state of κεχαριτωμένη, which is exactly what the Church teaches about Mary. Your assertion that κεχαριτωμένη means "Mary found favor with God" is not at all the meaning of the word, and it appears that, far from the Catholic Church reading something into the scripture, you are trying to deny something there in the text.

Ephesians 1:6 uses χάριτος, which is Noun, Genitive, Singular, Feminine.

Genitive: ■ adj. denoting a case indicating possession or close association.
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.[/quote]Moreover the early Christians certainly taught that she was free from all sin from the start so this idea that she is not immaculate is completely an innovation from man and not from God. So Protestants propose a theology that contradicts the prediction of the savior in the Bible that He would come from a sinless woman so this means our Blessed Lord could not be the savior. Further, they misconstrue the verses in scriptures taking meanings that are not there even to the point of denying the original authorship. Moreover, they deny the early church writings that are rather clear on this point.[quote]"He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption." [b]Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (A.D. 235).[/b][/quote][quote]"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." [b]Origen, Homily 1 (A.D. 244).[/b][/quote][quote]"Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary." [b]Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).[/b][/quote][quote]"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother." [b]Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).[/b][/quote][quote]"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides." [b]Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (AD 373).[/b][/quote]If you wanted to add this we can also show that the Blessed Virgin is the Ark of the New Covenant by parallel descriptions in scripture, thus she must be pure and clean from sin.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[rkwright]

Nice post CatholicCat... I tried to post the stuff about Kecharitomene earlier but phatmass was being weird and I couldn't post.

I'll paste something in from catholic.com which reiterates what CatholicCat is saying...

[quote]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.[/quote]

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1209962' date='Mar 7 2007, 05:02 PM'][b]Post 1 of 2[/b]
Some Protestants use this verse "all have sinned" in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But "all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle. "All have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin. Finally, "all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "[i]pantes[/i]." Also the Angels in Heaven are free from sin.In Adam all ("[i]pantes[/i]") have died, and in Christ all ("[i]pantes[/i]") shall live. This proves that "all" does not mean "every single one." This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven ([i]because Jesus said so[/i]).Paul says that death spread to all ("[i]pantes[/i]") men. Again, this proves that "all" does not mean "every single one" because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah). Here Paul says "many (not all) were made sinners." Paul uses "[i]polloi[/i]," not "[i]pantes[/i]." Is Paul contradicting what he said in [b]Romans 3:23[/b]? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.
Saint Stephen the Martyr was indeed full of grace, as the translation calls for, but when we look at the Latin Vulgate by Saint Jerome it is not “[i]gratia plena[/i]” like it calls the Blessed Virgin and our Blessed Lord but is “[i]plenus gratia[/i]” not in the eternal tense. Meaning that he was full of grace at the moment of his martyrdom (where all sin is washed away in Baptism of Blood) thus attaining eternal life. Because it is not etneral he was not always full of grace as “[i]gratia plena[/i]” suggests which is in the eternal tense.[/quote]

And yet, the term for "full of grace" is missing in the Greek. You're using a Latin translation to build a doctrine that is not found in the Greek.

[NewReformation]

The phrase used to translate "highly favored" is actually [b]χαριτόω[/b] or [b]κεχαριτωμενη[/b] which means "From G5485; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured."

Now, if you want to get technical, the phrase "full of grace" would be "plaras karitos" which is found in Acts 6:8 and John 1:14.
Acts 6:8 8στεφανος δε [b]πληρης χαριτος[/b] και δυναμεως εποιει τερατα και σημεια μεγαλα εν τω λαω

[Mr.Cat]

I use the Latin Vulgate because it is the summation and perfection of Christian Scripture in about the year four hundred on the Gregorian calendar (400 AD) lasting even to today. Many scripture scholars turn to Saint Jerome’s work and other works which ALL use the phrase “[i]gratia plena[/i]” so regardless of how you look at it the Christians believed it was “[i]gratia plena[/i].” The translation that proposed “highly favored” did not peer its head till really the nineteen hundreds (1900’s). This is the reason why I note the Latin because Latin is historically the language of the Christians. So for one to intentionally oppose the translation of “[i]gratia plena[/i]” is to oppose the entire Christian foundation and to propose that Christianity fell to the gates of Hell.

"[i]πίστις[/i]" as I pointed out before is not “full of grace” in the same sense for both the Latin Vulgate and the King James version of the Bible (even though the King James is hardly the Bible just a deformity of it) do not say “full of grace” in the same light. So the argument is completly invalid.

I made a quote about the phrase used for the Blessed Virgin from the Oxford University Press, all about the single word, “[i]κεχαριτωμένη[/i]”. It shows that it does indeed mean “full of grace” but even if one wants to argue that the translation should read “highly favored one” the meaning of the passage is about the same. Protestants simply presume that the mutilation of this single passage will defeat this passage evidence that she was preserved from original sin (even though there are hundreds of other proofs).

[b]Highly[/b] means in the fullest meaning of the word: extremely, very, exceedingly, greatly, vastly, decidedly, tremendously, exceptionally, extraordinarily, “to the highest degree”, immeasurably, or absolutely.

[b]Favored[/b] means in the fullest meaning of the word: preferential, VIP, “no-expense-spared”, special, privileged, superior, better, “important person”, preferential, “unique”, advantaged, or greater.

[b]One[/b] means in the fullest meaning of the word: single, solitary, lone, individual, solo, private, distinct, or “creature”.

So a Protestant whom truly believed this passage as they proposed would be claiming that the Blessed Virgin is exceedingly to the highest degree was spared no expenses in being a uniquely important person in the role of salvation to which this blessing is singular and solitary to her. Because of this interpretation one can automatically presume that she is free from sin by the presence of that favor. But because this is a faulty translation “highly favored one” there is no reason for me to entertain this interpretation but Protestants need to relies that this sinful change of the Sacred Canon does not help their case but rather makes it harder.

But we are diverging from [u][b]the topic as a whole[/b][/u] and [u][b]the original post[/b][/u], let us not narrow down on a single translation and keep the theology of the matter.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Mr.Cat]

[b]Double Post[/b] ([i]56k connection somtimes messes up[/i])

Edited March 8, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[FullTruth]

Although I don't believe Mary was sinless, I think this isn't a heaven or hell issue.

I'm going to be the first one here to say what some people probably already think, who cares!

Is it trusting in Mary's sinless nature going to save us, or is it trusting in God's redemptive act of the Christ's death on the cross going to save us?

[Knight of the Holy Rosary]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1209917' date='Mar 7 2007, 04:49 PM']I dunno...how could that happen...???
And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people. Acts 6:8

There are only two places in the Greek where the phrase "full of grace" is used, and neither of those is in reference to Mary.[/quote]


Okay...Let me restate my question. How can one be filled with grace [i]before[/i] the passion, death, and resurection of our blessed Lord?

[Mr.Cat]

The importance of the Blessed Virgin being immaculate is because we have our Blessed Lord whom Perfects and then we have the Blessed Virgin whom is the perfected. So while we imitate our Blessed Lord to whom we should look also is the Blessed Mother for her Immaculate Conception should increase our love of God, show us the power of God, and help us strive for Christian perfection by looking upon the purity that was granted to her. Even further if one denies the redemptive power of Christ and the power of God to have the Blessed Virgin free from sin then to what hope do we have? ([i]More to be said but this will do[/i])

Our Lady of Fatima listed the offences against her Immaculate Heart (to which they offend God greatly) and she lists disbelief in her Immaculate Conception and Status. Then moreover it is Dogmatic Law of the Church therefore all the faithful are bound to believe it not only because it is true but because it is bound by the Church.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1210156' date='Mar 7 2007, 09:55 PM']I use the Latin Vulgate because it is the summation and perfection of Christian Scripture in about the year four hundred on the Gregorian calendar (400 AD) lasting even to today. Many scripture scholars turn to Saint Jerome’s work and other works which ALL use the phrase “[i]gratia plena[/i]” so regardless of how you look at it the Christians believed it was “[i]gratia plena[/i].” The translation that proposed “highly favored” did not peer its head till really the nineteen hundreds (1900’s). This is the reason why I note the Latin because Latin is historically the language of the Christians. So for one to intentionally oppose the translation of “[i]gratia plena[/i]” is to oppose the entire Christian foundation and to propose that Christianity fell to the gates of Hell.

"[i]πίστις[/i]" as I pointed out before is not “full of grace” in the same sense for both the Latin Vulgate and the King James version of the Bible (even though the King James is hardly the Bible just a deformity of it) do not say “full of grace” in the same light. So the argument is completly invalid.

I made a quote about the phrase used for the Blessed Virgin from the Oxford University Press, all about the single word, “[i]κεχαριτωμένη[/i]”. It shows that it does indeed mean “full of grace” but even if one wants to argue that the translation should read “highly favored one” the meaning of the passage is about the same. Protestants simply presume that the mutilation of this single passage will defeat this passage evidence that she was preserved from original sin (even though there are hundreds of other proofs).

[b]Highly[/b] means in the fullest meaning of the word: extremely, very, exceedingly, greatly, vastly, decidedly, tremendously, exceptionally, extraordinarily, “to the highest degree”, immeasurably, or absolutely.

[b]Favored[/b] means in the fullest meaning of the word: preferential, VIP, “no-expense-spared”, special, privileged, superior, better, “important person”, preferential, “unique”, advantaged, or greater.

[b]One[/b] means in the fullest meaning of the word: single, solitary, lone, individual, solo, private, distinct, or “creature”.

So a Protestant whom truly believed this passage as they proposed would be claiming that the Blessed Virgin is exceedingly to the highest degree was spared no expenses in being a uniquely important person in the role of salvation to which this blessing is singular and solitary to her. Because of this interpretation one can automatically presume that she is free from sin by the presence of that favor. But because this is a faulty translation “highly favored one” there is no reason for me to entertain this interpretation but Protestants need to relies that this sinful change of the Sacred Canon does not help their case but rather makes it harder.

But we are diverging from [u][b]the topic as a whole[/b][/u] and [u][b]the original post[/b][/u], let us not narrow down on a single translation and keep the theology of the matter.[/quote]

A: The Bible wasn't written in Latin, it was written in Greek.

B: Using a translation rather than the original tongue to create a theology is a faulty method of creating doctrine.

C: I don't believe the Roman Church is a Christian Institution, nor has been so for many hundreds of years.

D: I believe there have been plenty of other Christians throughout the centuries outside the Roman Church to negate the idea that the church fell into apostasy and thus negated the NT scripture that states that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

E: I did not use the Greek underlying the KJV. This renders your argument against the KJV null and void.

[Farsight one]

I really know nothing about greek or latin or the like, so I have nothing to say about the rest of your post, but...
[quote name='NewReformation' post='1210201' date='Mar 7 2007, 10:51 PM']C: I don't believe the Roman Church is a Christian Institution, nor has been so for many hundreds of years.[/quote]If you say it has not been so for many hundreds of years, than is it safe for me to assume that it once was?

If it once was a Christian Institution, then it must still be one, since the Catholic church has remained ultimately unchanged for 2000 years. So, either it still is, or it never was. Which is it?

[Mr.Cat]

A: The Christians used Latin heavily within the first hundred years and the scriptures were translated into Latin for hundreds of years after Christianity’s founding. Furthermore, I have provided the case for Greek but one’s objection to the use of Latin is null unless one can disprove that the Christians used Latin and that the phrase they used was “Gratia Plena”.

B: This is not what happened but Protestants often do this to try to dispute other verses of Scripture, for example the phrase “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Protestants often take it out of the Aramaic (Gospel of Matthew) in the attempt to disprove the traditional translation of this verse and its meaning. So in any case the Catholic argument does not present this problem but consistently the Protestant argument does.

C: The Church was called Catholic (noun) early as the year one ten on the Georgian calendar (110 AD) and all the early Church Fathers note that Saint Peter the Apostle was the Rock and his successors govern the Church. Moreover, there is much evidence that Saint Peter and Paul the Apostles were in Rome thus suggesting the center of the Christian Church was in Rome, thus the Roman Catholic Church. But our Blessed Lord commanded that His Church be visible (which Protestants can offer no explanation to why their brand of Christianity did not appear till a thousand years later) and further that His Church be “Apostolic” (which again Protestants can offer no explanation why this is broken in their beliefs).

D: Any good “Bible Thumper” should know that our Blessed Lord never once in any of the Gospels commanded anything to be written down and further that never once do the writers of the New Testament write as if it will some day be incorporated into a singular canon we know as the Bible. So the question of what canons (books) should be included or excluded falls to the Church, which happened at a Catholic Council and otherwise was advocated by Catholic Saints whom we look at Christianity. There was no other form of Christianity (Gnostics existed but they are not Christian) other than the Catholic Church for nearly a thousand years. Therefore Protestants have to argue that the “visible” church fell into error while the “invisible” church did not but this is completely contradictory to the gospel and Protestants whom often use the gospels reject those whom put it together.

E: The point was to show that the statement “full of grace” when referring to Saint Stephen the Martyr does not mean what you are trying to make it mean. (Which I have given evidence of) This is a poor Protestant argument that is proposed by a hand full of Apologists on their side of things. It is moreover a question to test to see if a Catholic really knows what they are talking about and I have shown that I do. ([b]All due respect intended[/b])

[i]Baptist Belief is an offshoot of Puritan Belief that would fall under the realm of Protestantism that means, “protesting ones” namely protesting against the Church[/i]. [i]Since what you propose is against Church doctrine and you continue in dissent from the Church, this meaning fits correctly[/i].

Edited March 8, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[scardella]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1209925' date='Mar 7 2007, 03:58 PM']Luk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.[/quote]

That's a mistranslation, buddy. I hope this next part comes out properly... κεχαριτωμενη (the Greek, transliterated Kecharitomene) is literally translated "full of grace." The traditional translation dating back at least to Jerome in the late 300's as been "gratia plena" or "full of grace." The following quote from Wikipedia is basically what I was taught in my theology classes.

[quote name='Wikipedia']Chaire kecharitomene, a phrase which can most literally be translated: "Rejoice, you who have been graced". The latter word, kecharitomene, is the Passive voice, Present Perfect participle of the verb "to grace" in the feminine gender, vocative case; therefore the Greek syntax indicates that the action of the verb has been fully completed in the past, with results continuing into the future. Put another way, it means that the subject (Mary) was graced fully and completely at some time in the past, and continued in that fully graced state.[/quote]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1209932' date='Mar 7 2007, 04:05 PM']Jesus is the sole sinless being. Sorry, not a generalization. Jesus was a "human," yes, but He was also God.[/quote]

Jesus is fully human (also fully God), not kinda-sorta or mostly human.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Okay...Let me restate my question. How can one be filled with grace before the passion, death, and resurection of our blessed Lord?[/quote]If you read the other posts, you'll see that that's explain in scripture.

[quote]The phrase used to translate "highly favored" is actually χαριτόω or κεχαριτωμενη which means "From G5485; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured."

Now, if you want to get technical, the phrase "full of grace" would be "plaras karitos" which is found in Acts 6:8 and John 1:14.
Acts 6:8 8στεφανος δε πληρης χαριτος και δυναμεως εποιει τερατα και σημεια μεγαλα εν τω λαω[/quote]

It's also important to note that to believe God's grace is upon her, doesn't make her sinless, it depends on the specific definition that one's giving to such a phrase.

In regards to the statement that Catholics have always believed this, yadayadayada, that isn't exactly factual. Originally [back when the 4 rites were united] there was a single church, after the great schism, it was only the Romans that assumed that St. Mary was sinless [the sore thumb], where as the other churches proclaimed [as they do today] that she was sinless. Now it's true that some of our liturgies use similar words as the Romans but they are defined differently.

Again the situation stands: If St. Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be born sinless, then her mother would have to be sinless in order to bear a sinless child as well.

In regards to the ark of the cov claim: It's true that the ark couldn't be touched, even to stablize it, otherwise those individuals that were sinful that touched it would be destroyed. Therefore if St. Mary was the Ark literally [not just symbolically] and possessed the same responsibility as the ark, then whoever touched her would be destroyed too but obviously lots of people touched her, namely to help her [as the individual in scriptures that attempted to stabilize the ark that was destroyed attempted to do].

Reza

[Mr.Cat]

Grace and Sin cannot dwell in the same place just as light and darkness cannot dwell in the same place, therefore if she was eternally full of grace ([i]gratia plena[/i]) it means that it is impossible that she be with sin at any moment in time.

As I quoted from the Church Fathers the theology of the Blessed Virgin being pure from the stain of sin is very evident even in the two hundreds and three hundreds, the “great schism” not occurring for another eight hundred years. Therefore the argument that the Latin Rite of the Church proposed this first making a stumbling block is false, also it is silly because the first writers that really start to call her “immaculate” are the Eastern Rites of the Church. This proposal shows a lack of historical understanding on the issue.

The Blessed Virgin must be pure from the tainting of sin because she is the Second Eve as foretold in Book of Genesis, that enmities be placed between the woman and her seed foretelling the final defeat of Satan. There is no other woman and man in the Sacred Scriptures having this protection from Satan (that Satan have no claim upon them) meaning that they are free from sin. If this is not the Blessed Virgin the first promise of the redeemer is not met and our Blessed Lord cannot be the savior. This is why the Blessed Virgin must be pure from sin for if you attack her immaculate conception you are attacking the legitimacy of our Blessed Lord.

Therefore her mother does not have to be sinless and this proposal is one that reflect poor understanding of the Scriptures and of the Theology...

She is the Ark of the New Covenant but she is a perfected fulfillment of the old. The old ark was constructed by sinful man by the instruction of God; therefore the new ark could come from sinful woman, Saint Ann. The ark was merely an object and a shadow of what was to come, thus to impart the understanding that sin may not touch the ark God protected it from ANY defilement. Because the Blessed Virgin is a perfected fulfillment it makes sense that the same applies that no touch of sin may hold their grip on her, thus it is not a person touching the ark that they were slew but rather that “sin” was touching the ark. So the Blessed Virgin is preserved from even the touch of sin in grace.

The Scriptures likewise make a very compelling argument, which I can propose on request, that she must be the ark. Also the early Church proposed that she was the new ark in the second century. So it doesn’t make sense that Protestants are now retracting this claim and attempting to attack her Immaculate Conception.

But if we were to fall to the falsehoods of Protestantism and the misconstruing of theology that she could not be touched by sinful man at all instead of being she could not be touched by sin, no where in the Sacred Scriptures is the Blessed Virgin touched other than by our Blessed Lord. So even under their little argument it doesn’t go to disprove anything but rather is just again a misconstruing of the scriptures.

But for those whom still have doubt about she being the ark and other people touching her, there are those in the Scriptures (The High Priest) whom could touch the ark and indeed all things being made new in Christ we are made priests (of Baptism and not of Holy Orders). So the theology fits pretty well and we cannot presume that she being the New Ark she will be exactly the same, for example she isn’t a big box.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1210245' date='Mar 7 2007, 11:54 PM']A: The Christians used Latin heavily within the first hundred years and the scriptures were translated into Latin for hundreds of years after Christianity’s founding. Furthermore, I have provided the case for Greek but one’s objection to the use of Latin is null unless one can disprove that the Christians used Latin and that the phrase they used was “Gratia Plena”.

B: This is not what happened but Protestants often do this to try to dispute other verses of Scripture, for example the phrase “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Protestants often take it out of the Aramaic (Gospel of Matthew) in the attempt to disprove the traditional translation of this verse and its meaning. So in any case the Catholic argument does not present this problem but consistently the Protestant argument does.

C: The Church was called Catholic (noun) early as the year one ten on the Georgian calendar (110 AD) and all the early Church Fathers note that Saint Peter the Apostle was the Rock and his successors govern the Church. Moreover, there is much evidence that Saint Peter and Paul the Apostles were in Rome thus suggesting the center of the Christian Church was in Rome, thus the Roman Catholic Church. But our Blessed Lord commanded that His Church be visible (which Protestants can offer no explanation to why their brand of Christianity did not appear till a thousand years later) and further that His Church be “Apostolic” (which again Protestants can offer no explanation why this is broken in their beliefs).

D: Any good “Bible Thumper” should know that our Blessed Lord never once in any of the Gospels commanded anything to be written down and further that never once do the writers of the New Testament write as if it will some day be incorporated into a singular canon we know as the Bible. So the question of what canons (books) should be included or excluded falls to the Church, which happened at a Catholic Council and otherwise was advocated by Catholic Saints whom we look at Christianity. There was no other form of Christianity (Gnostics existed but they are not Christian) other than the Catholic Church for nearly a thousand years. Therefore Protestants have to argue that the “visible” church fell into error while the “invisible” church did not but this is completely contradictory to the gospel and Protestants whom often use the gospels reject those whom put it together.

E: The point was to show that the statement “full of grace” when referring to Saint Stephen the Martyr does not mean what you are trying to make it mean. (Which I have given evidence of) This is a poor Protestant argument that is proposed by a hand full of Apologists on their side of things. It is moreover a question to test to see if a Catholic really knows what they are talking about and I have shown that I do. ([b]All due respect intended[/b])

[i]Baptist Belief is an offshoot of Puritan Belief that would fall under the realm of Protestantism that means, “protesting ones” namely protesting against the Church[/i]. [i]Since what you propose is against Church doctrine and you continue in dissent from the Church, this meaning fits correctly[/i].[/quote]

A: And your point would be what? Again, I refer you to the fact that the Bible was originally written in Greek, not Latin. We have to go to the Greek to get the actual meaning, not Latin.

B: Since I'm not those Protestants, your argument is rendered null and void.

C: It appears from Scripture that the church was originally headquartered in Jerusalem. And I would argue vehemently that Baptists were around long before any group of Protestants, and are possibly as old as the Roman Church itself.


D: That's nice.

E: Baptist belief is not an offshoot of Puritanism, although Puritans did incorporate into Baptist churches.

Edited March 8, 2007 by NewReformation

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1210227' date='Mar 7 2007, 11:27 PM']I really know nothing about greek or latin or the like, so I have nothing to say about the rest of your post, but...
If you say it has not been so for many hundreds of years, than is it safe for me to assume that it once was?

If it once was a Christian Institution, then it must still be one, since the Catholic church has remained ultimately unchanged for 2000 years. So, either it still is, or it never was. Which is it?[/quote]

The Roman church has picked up and dropped doctrines over this two thousand year history. I hardly call that unchanged.

[iggyjoan]

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1209297' date='Mar 6 2007, 06:59 PM']The only person who lived a sinless life was the Jesus Christ. Mary wasn't sinless. Don't get me wrong. Mary was indeed a good woman, but she sinned.[/quote]


no she did not.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='iggyjoan' post='1210458' date='Mar 8 2007, 03:52 PM']no she did not.[/quote]

Prove it. Unless the Bible states otherwise, the evidence points that she did sin.

[Farsight one]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1210443' date='Mar 8 2007, 03:32 PM']The Roman church has picked up and dropped doctrines over this two thousand year history. I hardly call that unchanged.[/quote]Name a few.