An accurate example, and first you must understand that scripture is only a part of the deposit of faith, and it is not the source of all church teaching. Catholics hold the apostles taught more than was written in the books of the Bible. This is what we refer to as Sacred
Tradition. Paul instructs Christians "to hold fast to what has been taught to you either through word of mouth or in a letter."

Remember that Oral teaching was the main vehicle of the early Church as there were no bibles, and the writings of the apostles and their deciples, had little geographical reach, and would not even be declared cannon until the 4th century at the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage.

​

​

Your logic is faulty.​

​

Note that, Paul did not except Jesus in the first cited quote. So this "all" is not universal. ​

Your second quote, does not indicate that Christ is alone in not knowing Sin, and that isn't even the point of the narrative. ​

Your conclusion is an illogical jump, as Mary's sinless life was a grace afforded her by God, not something she acheived under hew own power. Furthermore it is a belief that has existed from the earliest days of the Church. The Church Father's interpreted the Angel's greeting at the Annunciation, "Hail, full of grace" to mean that Mary was free from the curse of original sin, and therefore capable of living a life free from sin.​

When I say you are taking the quotes out of context I mean this: the various books of the Bible were written to particular audiences with a particular purpose. This is especially true of the epistles. To dumb them down to soundbites to make a point is foolish.
Call no man father is a great example. The apostles did not interpret it to be a universal instruction, as they referred to themselves as spiritual fathers. The quote was presented in a narrative meant to illustrate that none are above God.

But, their objections, I would argue are faulty, and are largely ignorant of Catholic theology. You cannot argue that Catholics deify Mary, when no Catholic teaching professes that Mary is a diety.

​

​

Catholics beleive those that are Saints share in the beatific vision, and know what God knows. It isn't because of their divinity they are able to hear our prayers, but rather because of God's.

​

​

​

​

​

Catholics do beleive Christ is the only redeemer and mediator.​

​

As second Vatican Council Clarified, Mary's role as a mediatrix is subordinate, and based on Christ's role as the sole redeemer and mediator. I equate this to a corporate structure. A vendor can only be paid if the payment is approved by the Controller, however, the Controller designates certain responsiblities to his subordinates.​

See http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/ for a great summary of the doctrine.

​

​

As stated above scripture is only a portion of the deposit of Faith.

Father Supafan, can you please tell me why I had to go through a class called pre Cana to get married in the Catholic Church. What's the point?




And by the way, even though it was awesome seeing my wife in her wedding dress, I got married at a Mass ceremony in 2008 and my knees still hurt.

​

​

No what is shows is that given a propper context your interpretation of Corinthians is wrong.​

​

​

​

​

Already answered. Scripture does not say Mary was without sin. It is part of Christian teaching known as Sacred Tradition which is held in equal accord to scripture. This does not contradict Romans as Romans does not say one must be divine to be without sin.​

​

​

​

False.

You guys are very close to sorting this out

My biggest problem with any of this is that it is all based off of the assumption that the Bible is indeed the divine word of God. Debating someone whose only reference is an archaic text that they claim is the divine word of God and because of their belief that this text is the divine word of God, any rebuttal you offer is inherently heretical and therefore dismissed without consideration. It is like trying to argue with a child whose only rebuttal is "I know you are but what am I."

The sooner we abandoned the ongoing efforts to perpetuate this lie and focus our energies on finding the truth, the better off we will be as a society. If there is a God, and I believe that there is, it is not like you and I. It isn't the hormonal teenage girl as depicted in the Old Testament, it isn't prone to human emotion or desires for revenge or given to fits of rage followed by ages of peaceful bliss. If there is a God, it will be better explained by science than by religion. Science, at least, has a means of determining truth: the scientific method. Religion is no more interested in truth than I am in watching women's basketball.

The things you are pointing out in scripture are not contradictions. They are speaking to different matters.

If you said the tree has brown leaves, and later said the tree has green leaves have you contradicted yourself? Maybe on the surface, but understanding the broader meaning of each of your statements is key. Were you talking about the tree at different times of the year? Were you talking about the same tree? Were you speaking literally or allegorically? You have to know all those things before you can determine if you have contradicted your statements. Your rush to point out what you perceive to be contradictions has missed a wide swath of critical analysis that is necessary to make such a judgement.

Luther rejected Marian doctrines based on the fact they weren't mentioned in scripture. His logic is especially poor, as the idea that revelation can only come from scripture is not scritural. The fact that many object, and have or a long time only indicates that these objectors don't understand what they are actually objecting too.

As a practicing Catholic I can tell you that Mary is neither worshipped nor deified, and claims that she is are errant and lack understanding of the teachings.

Already answered. See above.

Astute people usually show some ability to understand nuance, an art completely lost on you boss.

Might I propose that people who actually practice a religion may have more understanding of the teachings of that religion.

​

​

​

​

The Church doesn't define dogmas based on popular appeal. I don't think the doctrine will ever be studied or defined, as the historical basis is said to be inadequate and the essence of the teaching is already encompassed by other dogmas.

Benedict XVI stated the essence of the Doctrine is already part of Catholic Marian teaching, and that further definition is not warranted.

​

​

​