eugene: Now your starting to see a little of the light,.. Does not the bible say that Jesus was the beginning of the creation of God! His Body had a beginning!! that was my point!... but! Jesus himself concerning him in spirit form never did have a beginning, "In the Beginning was the WORD, the WORD was with God, The WORD was God and teh WORD became Flesh.....

Now i have a Question for eugene: ((smile)) you say >>-- except her soul was preserved from the taint of Adam's Original Sin <<

What was the orginal sin? can you explain what happen in the garden? if you can, then expand on it please...

-- Dr.Oizo (hpuxor@yahoo.com), January 24, 2001

Answers

Response to The Orginal Sin

Hey, Dr. Oizo, is it all right with you if I answer your question too? I mean, I am sure Eugene has a great answer (probably a lot better than any I would give) but I'm interested in the subject too. Is this question just for Eugene?

-Hannah

St. James, pray for us to preach the Gospel as Christ wants it taught. Pray that our words truly educate those who do not understand. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Hannah: This is an open question to everyone, so feel free to relay some feedback from your own veiw point.. (smile)

-- Dr. Oizo (hpuxor@yahoo.com), January 24, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

While Hannah is composing her answer, which I expect will also be mine (we'll see), let me say no; your point had nothing to say about His Body had a beginning. You are weaseling out of what you really said, that Mary was a ''seed carrier''. That her blood could not have been in Jesus' new body. That in fact Jesus was created, not only His new body.

Mary is indeed the only creature to be free of Original sin. Her Son Jesus is God. He would necessarily have had direct contact with the Sin of Adam, which is passed on to all descendants; if Mary had been born in the usual way. But she is the Immaculate Conception. No sin--EVER! (Smile)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 24, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

eugene: Again iam going to ask you the question,.. What was the Orginal Sin, The Sin of Adam, and what is the Sin that mary is free from???... No wezzeling here pal,... I still stand on that,

1. God created the seed and egg in marys womb

2. mary gave birth to Jesus body, and mothered it "as a mother" (care taker) but Was not his mother, she was more like an incubator, just a channel that God could use to bring him a body to earth so that God could dwell in..

3. could not have God just spoke and *poof* made him a made to come down to dwell in,.. yet he choose to come to earth as a baby, so that it confounded the wise pharisess and the Jews missed his 1st coming all together, cause they had a carnal thought that the messiah would come in the clouds on a red carpet to the sanhedran council.. (WRONG) but yet we exzalt mary above than just a sister in christ.. why???

I look at mary as highly favored, and blessed, just as the angel said,.. but Jesus also said that "no man borned of woman was greater than John the baptist, but the least in the kigdom of heaven is greater than him". then why not put Johns mother up there and exzalt her???... was Jesus saying that John was Greater than him???... think about it. God is no respect of person, and nither should you guys be... mary had to recieve the holy ghost just like the rest of them did in the upper room,..

-- Dr. Oizo (hpuxor@yahoo.com), January 24, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Please,
Mary is biologically the Mother of (Jesus) God. Her genes, descended from David, are the genes which make Jesus the Messiah. God promised the Israelites, Messiah is the Son of David. God does not use weasel words, like we do, He speaks only the Truth.

Jesus is Eternal, in the Godhead as a Person. His Person became united to the humanity He took from Mary, in what's called the Hypostatic Union. Nothing is impossible to God.

His (Jesus') Person, in the Holy Trinity, is what unites His two natures. He is, then --True God, True Man. To deny it is heresy, according to the Catholic Church. Nowhere in Scripture does anything say God ''created both the sperm and the egg in Mary's womb''. That's a figment of your limited imagination, which has no concept of Who the Son of God Is / nor a grasp of what the Incarnation is --much less how God fathered His Divine Son in the Virgin Birth.

Regarding John the Baptist: Christ said ''the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than John.'' Since Jesus Christ is the KING in the Kingdom of God, He is ipso facto, greater than John or anyone else in the Kingdom of Heaven. (Smile)--Your point #3 is pointless. But at least it wasn't so foolish. The first two points were foolish.

Holy Mary, pray for your children in Christ. St James, Pray for us in this forum; especially for our skeptics and unbelievers. Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 24, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Eugene,

You quoted, "But she is the Immaculate Conception. No sin--EVER! (Smile)". I'm trying to understand this Mary thing. Wouldn't this mean that Mary herself was born a virgin birth also?

I just do not understand all this stuff concerning Mary. When I read the bible it all seems to testify how we as men must be born again to get to the kingdom of heaven. And right along this point is that your Father must be God too. Jesus told many people that there father was the devil when they did wrong. It seems logical that the Son of God HAD to be born a virgin birth in order to testify or prove to men how this is achieved. I believe that catholicism puts too much(leaven) into it when concerning Mary. The virgin birth is something that only God can do. It testifies that this man Jesus was in fact of God and not man. Jesus was only perfect because his Father was God. To me it seems very simple, when your Father is truly God then you too will accend in to the heavenly kingdom. Monkey see, monkey do!

-- Israel (notofthis@world.com), January 25, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

eugene: your still avoiding the question!

1. What was the Orginal Sin that caused the fall?

2. What is the Sin that you say that Mary is free from?

3. Why did Jesus have to be borned from a virgin birth, why not be borned like the rest of us, from a union of a male and female?

If you really understand what happened in the Garden and what caused the fall, you will understand why God had to create himself a body, not using anybody else blood , cells, genes...etc God could only redemmed this earth back with his on blood, and not mixed with anybodys else.

now as isreal stated, " you might believe that mary was borned from virgin herself".. do you believe that? are they a scripture for that?.. if not, then she was borned "In sin, shaped In inquitiy" like everyone else... >> Its the way you were born, that makes you In sin and shaped in Inquitiy<< otherwise, why did Jesus said " Ye Must be Borned again". it was cause, we were borned wrong the 1st time... Jesus said that He was borned from above!.. now do you see why that mary only gave birth to Jesus body, but could not have a part in creating it!!!

-- Dr. Orizo (hpuxor@yahoo.com), January 25, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Dear Dr.,
You are outrageous; at least Israel is questioning Catholic teaching in order to find what is acceptable, what is unacceptable. He isn't out of the parameters of sane argument. Israel thinks, ''There must be a reason this Church persists in teaching such ''unexplainable'' doctrines. What are those reasons ?''

Dr O, on the other hand, is here as devil's advocate; only to counter all claims of Church doctrine. In fact, he isn't interested in hearing the truth at all. Do us a favor, (Smile!)--Doctor-- in any number of Catholic websites you can find Original Sin explained for you. The official Church teaching. Save us aggravation; and read, come back, and tell us where it is counter to biblical truth. I'll be happy to defend the teaching as best I can. Meanwhile, you're welcome to take that recent ''test'' I suggested, and explain the Garden of Eden, Original Sin, and the full range of your scriptural knowledge.

I will then give you the grade you deserve. It doesn't have to be fundamentalist, orthodox or even unorthodox. You tell it, and let the chips fall where they may. I'm waiting /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 25, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Israel,
You ask about the Immaculate Conception. NO SIN--EVER, and (smile)--The smile was for Doc Oizos. He likes those.

Notice the words, NO SIN.

Mary was, according to Our Church's teaching (we'll return to that) given a unique grace; a free gift, by God the Almighty Father-- at the very first instant of her conception, she was born without sin. Not cleansed of it, born without it.

Well, you're going to say, ''That's nothing. All human beings are blameless and innocent at conception.'' But that isn't so. They have no actual sin in the womb. They have committed none. But all of us, even saints, come down in a straight line from Adam, who committed the first sin--Original Sin. His own first sin, is part of our nature, we are a ''fallen race. ''That's why David the Prophet cries out, ''In sin was I conceived,'' to God. He confessed, I am the same as my father Adam. And it's true. Read Saint Paul. He says One Man, Adam, brought sin into the world.

You may think. OK, but, wasn't Adam punished, and cast out of the Garden, and suffer death, for the sin?

Israel, that sin remains in his race, the human race, all of us. That's why no one can please God, without the Redeemer, who takes away Original Sin. (By Holy Baptism, which washes it away and makes us Christians, His own people.) Why, you will ask, would God let the Sin of Adam pass on to the rest of us, and punish us as well? We didn't do anything to deserve that. The reason is obvious. Our guilt, in the flesh --is being his children. We are subject to death and the loss of God's grace because *Adam went to the grave without expiating for all of us.*

Then Jesus came to make restitution and redeem us. He is without sin Himself, and makes the only *just reparation, or atonement*. He is the Paschal Lamb, whose blood is sprinkled on His people, giving them LIFE, while death passes over.

Mary was also descended from Adam, through her ancestors, including David. She would have ordinarily been subject also, to inherit the sin of Adam. But in His Infinite Wisdom, God ''kept away'' Adam's sin at the moment Mary was concieved, in her own mother's womb. (The Immaculate Conception of Mary.)

God did this for her --to have a Mother on earth for His only-begotten Son who would be free from this contact, through the flesh of Adam's Sin. In other words, Mary's grace was actually given her for JESUS. She was sinless by a particular GRACE of God-- in anticipation of the Son she would bring forth. Not just for her benefit at all; but she is still dependent on her Son for her own salvation. In the Old Testament we read of the man who reached out and took hold of the Ark of the Covenant, which he thought was about to fall. He was struck dead by God for doing it. The Ark was carrying God, and He is untouchable by sinful man. The Ark of the Covenant is a ''figure'' of Mary the Mother of Jesus. He is within her womb, prior to birth. He is God. She must be stainless, because of the Holy One she bears. So-- An Angel declared unto Mary; ''Hail, Full of Grace, The Lord is with Thee!'' She is called by the Church the Immaculate Conception, for these reasons. Back later!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 25, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Eugene,

Thanks for the reply, but you kind of assumed what I was asking but that was not exactly what I was questioning. For instance, I know all about the "original sin" concerning Adam and all men afterwards. That makes complete sense. On your above statement to the DR. you are right to assume this statement concerning myself:''There must be a reason this Church persists in teaching such ''unexplainable'' doctrines. What are those reasons ?'' Thats exactly right, I'm pretty learned on the basic biblical doctrines I just want to know more why the doctrine when it seems contrary. So, is this "immaculate conception" thing a biblical doctrine or a catholic Tradition? I don't believe I have ever found such an idea in the bible alone. I know that some will use biblical references in order to prove this doctrine, but it just doesn't seem to hold water for me. It really appears that those scriptures can mean something different. It would be interesting to know if you could happen to see how the protestants get their view. I know you don't agree, but can you place yourself in their shoes, and remember they don't believe in the big "T", and understand how they come up with the idea that this Mary doctrine is not true? Just wondering, do you think that Mary is symbolic of a greater thing such as woman, Eve or the church etc.?

You also wrote: "The Ark of the Covenant is a ''figure'' of Mary the Mother of Jesus." I don't see this, the ark of the covenant was a throne, or chair if you will, that God sits on. It also contains the Ten commandments and is referred to as the mercy seat. This just doesn't seem to fit figurativly. That would make it as if Mary is the one who gives mercy. This would then equate her with God which is.....blasphemy? I see the ark of the covenant to more so be a figure of Jesus. Why? Jesus came to the world to write the laws on our hearts and offer forgiveness of our sins so that we shall not die. To me it seems very clear that the figure is Jesus. He has inside him the "Ten commandments" and is "mercyful" for our sins.

-- Israel (notofthis@world.com), January 26, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Isreal,

you stated >>do you think that Mary is symbolic of a greater thing such as woman, Eve or the church etc.? <<

Yes! she was a type of the church, Iam not sure i would say "greater", but where eve failed in the Garden to take All of Gods word that he comissioned her and adam with,.. mary took God at his word, cause she said " be it unto me, according to thy word"... If mary would have not believed the angels message, then she would have never been concived by the holy spirit..

Same thing with the church today, if the church doesnt except the true word of God, then she is rejecting Gods seed to be pragnated in her mind (womb),.. and if we are not pregnated in our minds with the Word (Jesus) then we cant express him in our life.

Eugene:... Iam not sure if your ready for such strong meat of revelation, concerning what happen in the Garden, and what the orginal sin really was!!! but there again, David just confirmed what i was saying, cause david had a revelation of what happen in the garden when he said >>"In sin was I conceived"... sure , he couldnt commit sin in the womb, but the very act that got him to this earth was the reason he said that,... are you understanding what iam saying?

Why was it that Cain brought flowers to the alter for a Sacrifice ... and Able brought a lamb to the alter,.. and then God rejected Cains Sacrifice and excepted Ables..? .. its because Able had a revelation , a pure clear understanding from God, of what happen in the garden to cause the fall, that it came though the blood cells, and the only way for the forgivness of sins to take place ,is for an innocent one to be slain, a lamb...(type of Jesus christ) read it for yourself in your Own bible...

-- Dr. Oizo (hpuxor@yahoo.com), January 26, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Dear Israel-- You find the ''foreshadowing'' of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Ark of the Covenant is a reach? OK, the Paschal Lamb is a reach, as well. But that's why God gave us brains, and sent the Holy Spirit to the Church. To discern otherwise hidden things in the light of what Jesus Christ has become for humankind.

The Holy Ark is the ''Bearer' or ''Presence'' of Yahweh, Our Father, in the Old Testament. The Blessed Virgin is similar, because she is the ''Christ-bearer.'' We should skip all the finesse and take in the message. It doesn't imply any sort of ''power'' given the Virgin, simply her great holiness. My main point was: God is infinitely offended by sin. He will not bear the sight of it. This is a given.

Christ being God-- the same respect is due His ''Bearer'', the Virgin Mary, as was given to the Ark of the Covenant, which transported and enthroned God in the OT. To touch it was a sacrilege which was punished by death. Now, Mary isn't about to bring death to one who touches her. But her Immaculate Conception means God provided His Divine Son with the same ''sacredness'' that was afforded the Ark. No taint of Adam's sin is to be found in her, because God cannot be ''touched'' by sinful flesh.

You ask was all this arrived at by reading Scripture? Some truth is seen in Gen: 3, and again in Luke, 1: 28 and 35. But there are many ramifications that appeared slowly in the writings of the early Fathers, and Sacred Tradition. Ciao, Is-- and God enlighten and bless you!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for us; and Pray, Saint James, for God's help in our forum, Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 26, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

OK, here's what I understand the original sin to have been: turning away from God and not obeying Him. Did Eve sin by eating something? It doesn't really matter. The parents of humanity sinned by following their own hearts, not God's. They sinned in exactly the same way that we do-- by not doing what we know God wants. Now, if any Catholic out there has heard something different, please let me know. I just started studying this kind of thing this year.

-Hannah

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 26, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

+

Doctor,
If you mean to suggest sex, don't be mealy-mouthed about it. It might well have had something about it (the temptation of the serpent), we aren't really told. We are told it was ''forbidden fruit''. For you now to extrapolate a connection from forbidden sex or sex period, to the Virgin Birth of Christ, is once again, a figment of your feverish imagination. Nothing is inherently sinful about sex.

The reason for a Virgin mother was and still is, that God is Jesus' Father. The reason for a sinless (Immaculate) Mother for Our Lord-- is that He is God.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 26, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

thank you. remember, it was the first thing humans were told to do, in the first story of creation. In the second, Adam is forbidden to eat the fruit before there ever was Eve, so I'm a little hesitant to jump on "the fruit" being "sex," unless I have misunderstood what you meant...

aaaaa aaaaa aaa

-- anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), January 26, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Eugene,

I liked you post to Isreal re: Mary vs. Ark.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Eugene,

I was interested in your statement "Mary was also descended from Adam, through her ancestors, including David. She would have ordinarily been subject also, to inherit the sin of Adam. But in His Infinite Wisdom, God ''kept away'' Adam's sin at the moment Mary was concieved, in her own mother's womb. (The Immaculate Conception of Mary.)"

I have a hard time trying to believe this. Is this a teaching of the Catholic church or is it in the Catechism or both? It's not in the Bible. I suppose I could do some research on this but I haven't much time for that. I thought I would ask you, hope you don't mind. Thanks

-- Carmel Roberts (jcrob@earthlink.net), January 27, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Eugene,

Aside from the Lord Jesus, the Bible is quite clear that nobody else has ever been sinless:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10

"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Romans 3:12 None of these verses say "all have sinned, except Mary."

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin..." Galatians 3:22

In Luke's gospel, Mary herself admits that she was a sinner. Otherwise she would never have admitted that she needed a Saviour:

"And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." Luke 1:46-47

The Bible makes it quite plain that Mary knew she was a sinner in need of a saviour. I really fail to understand how the Catholic church or any other church or person could claim otherwise.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 27, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Please, Mary-- If you fail to understand, it means plainly that you don't,/i> It doesn't logically mean that it's false. Why not go from the premise (also to answer Carmen's query) that the scripture is unclear in many respects. A Christian doesn't always demand written proof of a revelation. Our Lord proclaims faith the most powerful help to His followers. And recall, St. Paul indicated that the letter kills, and the spirit gives life. You wish to hold to the letter of Romans 3:10, 3:12, and 3:23, as if the emphasis was on Mary's sin, when the emphasis is on the ''advantage then [that] remains'' to the Jew in the Law and circumcision. In fact, Paul's very words are: ''I speak after a purely human manner.'' (verse 5). This passage can't be applied the same in Mary's circumstance, which God Himself ordained for her.

As Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, her human status is unique. God prepared a worthy tabernacle in her womb, not because Mary didn't ''need'' a Saviour. Jesus is Infinitely Holy; the Incarnation is Infinitely Holy, His Mother must be Holy! The word Holy, Sanctus, means ''set apart'', and Mary was set apart by way of her Immaculate Conception. Sin and the Saviour could never co-exist in the same tabernacle.

It's amazing to me protestants make tough sledding about such a dispensation. It's almost as if they don't comprehend Jesus is God; and He was every bit as Holy in His earthly existence as He is upon His heavenly throne!

Mary's term, ''My Saviour,'' is entirely fitting; God is indeed her Saviour. (Luke 1:47)--It is just as important for her personal salvation that she is saved at her conception without sin. Without the special grace God granted her for the glory of His Son, Mary would indeed have inherited Original Sin-- So, God is her Saviour. God washes away our sin in baptism; and Mary is preserved before conception from that sin, too. The Saviour of Mary and our Saviour are the same.

In saying all this, I don't attempt to dismiss all your doubt in the matter. I just suggest you make an effort to understand. The Holy Scripture doesn't always carry you over the threshold from confusion to absolute knowledge of the mysteries of God. God's Wisdom is unknowable by men and women. It is not an open book!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 27, 2001.

OFF--

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 27, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Eugene,

I think protestants very well understand that Jesus is God. That is why Mary can not be the mother of God, since God created all things and he is ONE. It is very simple, if Mary was born without sin then she would be above any human and equall with Christ. She was human and therefore has inherited death just as every other human that has existed. Jesus is the only human ever to exist since Adam and Eve that was born without sin. We as humans need a saviour so we don't inherit death. For Mary to claim Jesus as her saviour, then she too needs one so she doesn't inherit death. From the begining of time the God of the Jews was ONE, meaning one God and no more. I have found not one place in the bible which directs me to pray to or worship any other than the ONE God of the Jews. We are to pray and worship the one God and believe the testimony and prophecy of the only being that has preceded us in death and ressurection, JESUS. To believe in the the sinlessness of Mary is quite assuredly trickery of the devil. I do not say this out of harm or hatred but only love for man's souls that they are not lost to the devil. Eugene, Why can't you see the trickery of the devil at work here? He is tricking you in to believing that you are not worthy, that you can not pray directly to God and that via Mary is better. You are eating right from his hand of the fruit of good and evil, can't you see it? Claiming Jesus is good and needing(coveting) anymore is evil.

-- Israel (notofthis@world.com), January 28, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

To Israel, please,
I need to know the question-- You say, ''Wouldn't this mean Mary herself was born a virgin birth also?''
Can you explain what you mean? What appears to prompt your question is NO SIN--EVER. And by that, I meant to say, Mary was preserved from the stain of sin at conception in her own mother's womb. And subsequently was free of actual sin. Who preserved her from that sin? God did, of course. She is the only other human being free of sin after Jesus.

Jesus did not need anyone to preserve Him from it; He is God. Mary did need God. He made her free of sin by His grace. (Luke,1: 28, 30) Catholics don't give her the credit, they know she owes it all to God. God did it for His Divine Son, Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 28, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Dear Israel,
I saw your last post only after I'd sent mine, about NO SIN--EVER; And in your last you come out with this ''trickery of the devil at work.''

I want to assure you you're mistaken in the last statements you make, Israel. You say that we don't believe we're worthy, and don't pray directly to God, but via Mary is better! All Catholics address God directly in their prayers! Jesus taught all Catholics the Pater Noster ''OUR FATHER'' --a prayer to the God of Abraham, Isaac and the Prophets, as well as the God of Mary and the Saints. The Eternal Father of Jesus Christ, Messiah! So what is your TRIP? The OUR FATHER (Who art in Heaven) has been prayed in every Catholic household over and over for 2,000 years! Mary is an intercessor, like an attorney-- between us and her Son Jesus. He loves His holy mother; we expect her to just leave OUR PETITIONS at His feet! Why? Because she loves us as her own children. Israel-- It's just a big FAVOR we ask her!

There is only ONE God; Nobody in the Catholic Church believes there are three Gods. God is ONE GOD, and He is Three Persons. The Three Persons are Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit. But in ONE.

Does this mean the devil prays the Our Father every day too? You got to think that one over, Israel; WOW!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 28, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

even with no sin, Israel (or is it Isreal? I'm not sure. Let me know which you prefer), which you say makes Mary equal to God, Mary still owes God for that (thank you eugene), and Jesus was as Divine as He was human. How can anyone equal that?

aaaa aaaaaa aaaaaa

-- anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), January 28, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Eugene,

You stated "Mary was preserved from the stain of sin at conception in her own mother's womb. And subsequently was free of actual sin. Who preserved her from that sin? God did, of course. She is the only other human being free of sin after Jesus."

No doubt this comes from the Catechism. It is certainly not in the Bible in any way, shape or form. The problem non Catholics have with your statement is that we don't recognize the Catechism. We find that it contradicts the Bible in so many areas. If you would like me to post some of these contradictions, I'll do so. However I won't do it unless requested to by a Catholic for obvious reasons, not the least being this is a Catholic site.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 28, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Jmj

Hi, folks.

BEFORE SAYING WHAT I REALLY WANT TO SAY -- THAT IS, THE THINGS I HAVE BEEN WRITING UP AS I HAVE BEEN READING THROUGH MANY POSTS FROM 12/25 TO THE PRESENT, I MUST RESPOND TO THE LAST ONE:
Under NO circumstances would it be permissible, under the moderator's rules, for any non-Catholic to post a string of alleged contradictions between the Catechism and the Bible. There are vast chunks of Internet pages devoted strictly to debunking the Catechism, and pieces of it have been copied here over the last two weeks by people who hate our Catholic faith. [I believe that some of the pages are part of the Jack Chick manure pile, and they may be replicated at the jesus-is-lord.com dung heap as well.] There must be NO MORE of that, because it led to so much of the rancor of the past two weeks. Let us continue in the respectful manner that has been characterizing this thread today. NO MORE ANTI-CATHOLIC ATTACKS ARE PERMITTED HERE.

Thank you. Now I will proceed ...
Boy, did Israel hit the nail on the head, without realizing it!!! He indirectly brought to the forefront something that we Catholics keep forgetting and forgetting to mention -- because we are so easily fooled into (1) trading "proof-texts" with our separated brethren or (2) appealing to Sacred Tradition, which they reject even though the Bible tells them to accept it.

Now, here is what Israel wrote:
"So, is this 'immaculate conception' thing a biblical doctrine or a catholic Tradition? I don't believe I have ever found such an idea in the bible alone. I know that some will use biblical references in order to prove this doctrine, but it just doesn't seem to hold water for me. It really appears that those scriptures can mean something different."

Yes, indeed! If a person does not have the proper (Catholic) guidance in interpreting scripture and lacks the overall (Catholic) doctrinal framework against which to test an interpretation, any biblical references we provide may mean something different to that person. This is the major reason that we do not convince each other here by trading proof-texts and appealing to Tradition.

When all is said and done, the whole thing boils down to ... AUTHORITY.

The Catholic Church claims authority and, we are totally convinced, has that authority. She has been around from the beginning. Jesus gave her all authority to bind, loose, and teach in his name. She teaches infallibly. CASE CLOSED.
All that is required, then, is for our separated brethren to pray for, and receive, the gift of faith to accept that authority. "Ask and you shall receive." If our brethren do not ask, they will not receive, but will instead defend theological errors indefinitely.

When we are in conversation with non-Catholics, we amateur Catholic apologists show the reasonableness of our doctrines, demonstrating that they can be supported by scripture (or, at the very least, do not contradict the Holy Bible). We do not scientifically prove that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. Such a thing is impossible with respect to supernatural matters. We can only soften the hard soil, plant seeds, lay foundations, try to open closed minds to the possibility that we are being reasonable. The Holy Spirit then does the hard part of moving an open mind to accept the AUTHORITY of the Church to teach infallibly.

And so I say to Israel and to all non-Catholic here: "Please do not expect proof that we are right. Please do not demand verses that can be interpreted only one way -- the 'Catholic way.' And please do not think that you can prove that we should abandon Catholicism, either by verses or argumentation."

I want to try to illustrate how a Catholic belief can be shown to be reasonable and supportable -- even if previously perceived as absurd.
Israel stated to Eugene: "You also wrote: 'The Ark of the Covenant is a "figure" of Mary the Mother of Jesus.' I don't see this, the ark of the covenant was a throne, or chair if you will, that God sits on. It also contains the Ten commandments and is referred to as the mercy seat. This just doesn't seem to fit figuratively."
Eugene has already stated that the "presence of God" dwelt in the Ark. Not merely the spiritual presence -- but even the Word of God, the tablets of the commandments. In Mary, the New Ark of the Covenant, not only the spiritual presence (Holy Spirit) of God dwelt -- but even the Incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ. But if one thinks of the Ark as a throne or chair "that God sits on" -- so be it. Our beloved Blessed Virgin's lap was a spotless chair for God the Son to sit on. She is indeed the "seat of Mercy." It does indeed "fit figuratively," I would say to Israel. I will try to add more on this later.

May Jesus hear the prayers of Our Lady and St. James on our behalf.
God bless you.
John
PS: Those who have thought that Mary could not have been immaculately conceived are mistaken in two ways.
(1) Without realizing it, they put limits on the creator, God, who could cause anyone to be thus conceived, if it be his pleasure.
(2) They have forgotten Adam and Eve, who were immaculately "conceived." Corruption was not what God had in mind for mankind. God made Mary (the "second Eve") to be the kind of human that he intended all humans to be, a noble vessel for the "second Adam," Jesus.

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 28, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

John,

You should not confuse reasoned replies to by non-Catholics as being anti-Catholic or with some of the vile attacks on Catholicsm that have recently taken place on this forum.

If a reply is done in a polite manner from a non Catholic to a Catholic question (particularly when addressed to a non-Catholic) and that reply contains scriptures from the Bible, then you should respect that.

The moderator set down the rules a few days ago. "Questions *and Criticisms* from non-Catholics are also welcomed if done in a sincere fashion."

You stated "The Catholic Church claims authority and, we are totally convinced, has that authority. She has been around from the beginning. Jesus gave her all authority to bind, loose, and teach in his name. She teaches infallibly. CASE CLOSED." If this is indeed 'CASE CLOSED' in your view (I take it you aren't the spokesman for all of the Catholics here) then you are no better than a little boy who blocks his ears and closes his eyes and sticks his head in the corner.

Basically the gist of your post was that it is OK for a non-Catholic to express a view as long as it agrees with what you think. However that is not what the moderator said.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 28, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Mary,

Would you please e-mail me.

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 28, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Jmj

It appears, Mary, that my big, bold, black, "CASE CLOSED," in the middle of my message distracted you so much that you did not attentively read the rest of my post. You stated: "If this is indeed 'CASE CLOSED' in your view ... then you are no better than a little boy who blocks his ears and closes his eyes and sticks his head in the corner. Basically the gist of your post was that it is OK for a non-Catholic to express a view as long as it agrees with what you think. However that is not what the moderator said."

Nor is it what I said. It would be better to ASK me what the "gist of [my] post was," rather than TELL me what it was, mischaracterizing it in the process. Since you did not grasp all of my post properly, it was quite disrespectful for you to insert that "little boy" nonsense. [Try to imagine how you and others here would justifiably pounce all over me if I sought to demean you like that, using a term like "little girl," "granny," or other feminine label that could make you look foolish.] I hope that a time very soon will come when you can concentrate on substantive matters, instead of using the tainted tactic of "ad hominem" attacks. Please stop trying to demean me or to make me out to be a bully versus a weak, innocent woman, and to use similarly transparent ploys. When you use these techniques (i.e., in almost every reply you have ever made to me), I realize that it is in desperation -- to deflect attention from the fact that something you previously stated about the subject matter at hand has just been refuted by me. For heaven's sake, instead of this kind of unpleasantness, please get on with your next meaningful statement -- admitting (or at least ignoring) a point you've just lost, and skipping the habitual personal attacks!

Now, the point of my previous post was that neither you nor we will get anywhere trying to PROVE something to the other side by means of "dueling scriptural quotes" about specific doctrines or by trying to persuade the other to use or to abandon some Sacred Tradition concerning the topic at hand.
My point was also that there is only one bottom-line topic truly worthy of discussion between Catholics and non-Catholics -- AUTHORITY. Who has authority? Who lacks it? How does one know? What did God reveal about that?

But, after my words, "CASE CLOSED," I went on to say the following, which belies what you just claimed (i.e., the little boy syndrome):
"When we are in conversation with non-Catholics, we amateur Catholic apologists show the reasonableness of our doctrines, demonstrating that they can be supported by scripture (or, at the very least, do not contradict the Holy Bible)."
In other words, we WILL carry on dialog to show the reasonableness of our beliefs, but not with any unreasonable expectation of getting an instantaneous miracle conversion from you. And we expect you to realize that you will not get any conversion from us -- because we have that reassuring "case-closed authority" on our side. [By contrast, you don't have that reassurance, because each of you and all your "churches" admit to being fallible -- but we still don't expect rapid conversions.]

A person is simply laboring 100% in vain if he thinks he can persuade any of us Catholics here to abandon one or more of our doctrines. The "case-closed authority" of 2,000 years is behind those doctrines. That is why I also stated this: "Please do not expect proof that we are right [though we will defend our beliefs reasonably and logically]. Please do not demand verses that can be interpreted only one way -- the 'Catholic way' [though we will provide verses, when we consider it helpful to do so]. And please do not think that you can prove that we should abandon Catholicism, either by verses or argumentation [though we will consider your verses and arguments, agreeing with those that support our doctrine, but showing where the others fall short]."

St. James, pray for us.

Mother most pure, pray for us.

God bless you.
John


-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 28, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

J.F.G, You are right it is authority! Why don't we accept that Authority that Peter had? I mean for real, read it in Matthew 16:15-23. This is the catholic foundation, this is where the first pope gets Knighted or whatever and we have the beginings of the chuch that has an infallible leader right? Come on read it! Read it again several times! Peter gets the keys to heaven and now has power to bind and loose and hell shall not prevail, right? WRONG! Read verse 22-24. Now Peter imediately defies the son of God and gets rebuked and is called by Jesus Christ himself "Satan" and he(Peter) is an offence to him! To build up a religion off of that passage you would have to be as blind as a bat or the most cunning deceiver of all time. Peter gets his revelation from who? The Father in heaven!!! That my friend is AUTHORITY!!!! No man had revealed it to him, it was the Father who did. If you think that Satan can not prevail against the CHURCH then you my friend are a FOOL! Satan has prevailed against the people of God since Adam and Eve and will continue till our Lord comes again with his kingdom to finally put an end to it. What the gates of hell can not prevail against is the ROCK=TRUTH! Not a church and I can prove it! Go thru the history books it's filled with the gates of hell prevailing against the church. That church can be called catholic or any one of the protestant variations and it has been prevailed against for 2000 years. My proof! Need more? How about lets go to the book of Revelations? Read the messages to the churches, notice all the evil they are doing? Yeah, and satan is not prevailing. Need more proof? How many preists and ministers out there have committed adultery, coveted, molested children, took more money than needed for themselves, and not to mention the thousands of church goers doing just as evil or worse than these Godly men leaders. How about those evil protestants that are stealing souls in south America? Need more proof? I could go on and on! Satan is the prince of this world and as long as he exists there will be corruption and evil YES even in the church that Jesus Christ started. Where do you think his(satan's) first place is he is going to go after Christ accends to heaven? Read it! It's in the book of Revelations, chapter 12. Where do you think lil satan going to go? He going to go start his own church? Don't be a fool! He has been there day one and will until the Messiah returns and finally rids us of this liar. Satan continues to do the same thing today as he did to Peter. Let him claim who the messiah is with his mouth and in a eye blink turn and deny the very thing we just proclaimed as truth.

Salvation through the catholic church only is a lie. Salvation has been around since the foundation of the earth and is open to all men. "Reach forth thy hand and ask for the tree of life"-SALVATION, so simple, "keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ"! Mercy triumphs over judgement and death is swallowed up in victory! Thank you GOD! This is the TRUE CHURCH this is the AUTHORITY by GOD, not man.

Oh Lord my God, Creator of all things, God of Noah, God of Abraham, God of Issac, God of Joseph, God of Moses, Please let these that read open their eyes to your truth that they be not deceieved by the evil one and let their eyes hear your truths. Lord let them receieve the understanding that you promissed. Let them not deny your holy spirit. Lord let them have access to your tree of life that they don't die unneedfully. Lord let them know that you are the one who gives salvation to us who need it though we don't always walk in your ways as we should. Forgive us Lord for our sins against you and guide us in to rightous living. Walk with us Lord that we will not stumble and fall. Lord I know that nothing in or of this world should stand in my way for salvation and keep me reminded daily of this. Lord put your words into my heart and my mouth that I do not sin against you. Lord I ask do as your word proclaims and have mercy on them and not judgement, even them that do harm to those who follow your ways. They are deceived by the evil one. Lord judge the evil one for his corruption of your sons. Destroy him that has destroyed the earth. Bring us back to your garden that we may live and eat of the tree of life without the liar who has ruined our relationship with you. Have mercy on them that have not believed and have been deceived. Lord I plea to you, take back your children and let us be one again. Lord help us to prepare your bride that she is without spot and worthy to be with you in your kingdom. Lord keep us from evil. Lord we await your return patiently.

-- Israel (notofthis@world.com), January 29, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Israel, you said,

She was human and therefore has inherited death just as every other human that has existed.

In Kings, isn't Elijah spared death? If your premise is that inheriting original sin leads to death, why wouldn't Elijah have had to die? Are you claiming he was Jesus?!? If original sin has nothing to do with death, what is your problem with Mary, the mother of our Lord being granted a special status just like Elijah, a man? Following is my "quote" for referrence:

Elijah took his cloak, rolled it up and struck the water with it. The water divided to the right and to the left, and the two of them crossed over on dry ground. 9 When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, "Tell me, what can I do for you before I am taken from you?" "Let me inherit a double portion of your spirit," Elisha replied. 10 "You have asked a difficult thing," Elijah said, "yet if you see me when I am taken from you, it will be yours--otherwise not." 11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. 12 Elisha saw this and cried out, "My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!" And Elisha saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and tore them apart.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 29, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Thank you Heavenly Father for sending your only begotten Son to die on the cross for us, thank you Father for raising Him on the third day and thank you for your servant Israel and the wisdom that he shared with us. In the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Amen

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 29, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Israel,

"of the chuch that has an infallible leader right" That's not what we said. "infallibility" only applies at certain times in certain circumstances. Peter (and the others) were still learning from Jesus at that time (and "satan" also simply means "adversary," and Jesus' usage would have been quite common), Peter would not become a spiritual leader until after Pentecost, and after Jesus was no longer on earth in the capacity of a spiritual leader. He wasn't the Pope yet. In no way was he doing anything for which a Pope would be infallible.

Any reference to Revelation What is being spoken about may be things contemporary to the author. If they are not, and they are predictions about another time, well, what makes us so special? Why our time? There has been about 2,000 years worth of "future-time" that's already passed, and who-knows-how- much "future" there will be after this. *EVERY* time has taken writings such as that and read it into their own time, with equally convincing results. My point is, you don't know if John meant his own day, the "great schism", the "reformation", Nazi Germany, the present day, or something that hasn't even happened yet and won't for 3,000 years.

"How many preists and ministers out there have committed..." Cite as many individual people as you want, but the Church has the same problem as other churches, police, fire, et cetera: namely, that they have to recruit from the human race. None of these people can contribute to or diminish the guidance from the Holy Spirit that the Pope has when making ex cathedra proclamations. The Holy Spirit will not guide seperate people to seperate conclusions, so one interpretation/practice is correct and the others are incorrect (without saying anything about the consequences of "in-correct-ness," for that's a debate with which we will be unable to reach any conclusion). Which one is correct?

Early Christian writings and pagan writings of early Christians testify to the existance of Sacred Tradition (which has been defined so many times in these posts that I'm not going to do it here again). If these things (also ennumerated many times) were Christian practice and belief during the time of the apostles, immediately afterwards, and on to the present day (in Catholic circles, anyway) than anyone practicing otherwise is not practicing Christianity as it was understood and passed on by the apostles.

The answer is a simple one, if you don't do everything that the 1st generation, apostolic contemporary Christians did, than you are clearly missing something(s) very important. Those that do things like "weed- out" the Sacrements or alter the composition of the Holy Bible, cannot, by any stretch of logic or reason have the authority to teach. The one body that does and believes those things is the one body with the authority to teach. This body has a leader, someone to make sure that the proper things get taught properly (because there are an infinite number of interpretations, but only one right one, so we need some way to know). Doesn't it stand to reason that if God cares at all that Christianity is practiced He will give this leader whatever Grace, guidance, and tools he needs to do his job well?

aaaaaa aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa

-- anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), January 29, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Absolutely splendid, Anthony! Wonderful!
You caught the letter and the spirit of what I was trying to communicate.

I feel terribly sorry for Israel. He pretty much shocked me with his long diatribe. I knew that he was capable of such, since his very first post here was extremely abusive. [He started by writing, "It really sickens me to see such blind people make claims of the one and only church ..." Then in his next post, he amazed several of us by writing: "I have noticed a lot of catholic/protestant rivalry on this forum lately. Can we do this without any name calling or prejudice please!!" Where did that kind of thinking go today? Is his name Israel Jekyll or Israel Hyde? I'm at a loss to understand.]

After some of us objected to his very first offenses, I was pleased that he seemed to take on a new, pleasant tone. I thought that it would be further reinforced by the rules that the Moderator posted. I hoped that he would not "lose it" again. Alas, he regressed today and used wounding language and a vehemence that I consider in violation of the rules. [And I feel sorry the person who thought that Israel's post to reveal "wisdom." Besides having been worded in bad taste, it contained various errors. Such a thing is far from "wisdom."]
The following words (and especially the utter contempt with which they are expressed) are so offensive to me and my Church that I have opted not to converse with Israel until he has apologized:
"To build up a religion off of that passage you would have to be as blind as a bat or the most cunning deceiver of all time."
"If you think that Satan can not prevail against the CHURCH then you my friend are a FOOL!"
"They [Catholics] are deceived by the evil one." (But Israel, of course, is not.)

St. James, patron of our forum, please help this bitterness to end.
Mother involate, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 29, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Praise God!!!!

Thank you Israel for your wonderful post.

Thank you, Father God, for your infinite mercy,your unfailing love,and for the free gift of Salvation, through Jesus Christ. Amen...

-- SSM (non-catholic follower of Jesus Christ) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), January 29, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Susan, Dear-- How have you served God?

Upon seeing Anthony's effort to clarify to Israel our Church's NET WORTH to God in the world, and another poster's complaint over Israel's outbursts, you find it necessary to enter the arena in defense of Israel's insecurity. Why do you interfere, if you are impartial? ''Praise God! Thank you Israel for your wonderful post!''

Israel (beg pardon, Izzy) had just made a FOOL of himself! Someone was trying to lend him a hand. But you have your precious agenda to prop up; and Israel is just a pawn for you! You show your true colors! You aren't in this forum for the glory of God's Word. You're on an ego trip! Sorry, but it's a real effort to be charitable; seeing your deviousness.

Blessed Mother of Jesus Our Lord, pray for us and Thy Son's Church in the world! Amen. Saint James, Apostle of Jesus, see our helplessness, and pray for us! Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 29, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

John,

You said of me "-- admitting (or at least ignoring) a point you've just lost...". What point I was supposed to have lost is lost on me I'm afraid, but never mind.

Admittedly this is a Catholic forum and as such non-Catholics such as myself, should at least be mindful of that. If you think I have insulted you, then I am sorry for that. However I think that some of your comments to Susan were quite uncalled for and I reacted to that in an aggresive manner. I feel a kinship with Susan and supported her because she had been unfairly maligned, in the same way as you have supported Eugene for example.

I am leaving this forum for good, you will be pleased to know. It has been my personal experience that many former Catholics (not taking into account the testimonies of former priests and nuns) absolutely hate Catholicsm with a vengence. I say this so that you might have a better understanding of them when they frequent your forum.

Catholics of course are convinced their church is the one true one set up by Christ. When I stand on the outside and take a good long look in however, I cannot help but see things differently. I remain utterly unconvinced of this Catholic claim, thus much other Catholic doctrine remains untenable to me .

I will pray for you all.

-- Mary Derek (mderek@hyome.com), January 30, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

Mary,
Does ***your indignation*** (see below ) stem only from frustration with John Gecik, from the way Susan and you are ''unfairly maligned''? Come on!

The ''prayer'' in which you thank God, ''your servant Israel, and the 'wisdom' he has shared with us!'' relating to Israel's barely coherent and mostly bigoted attack on those here that paid him serious attention. You expected that to pass unnoticed? I guess if Israel throws rocks through the window of my Church, you'll pray, ''Lord, your servant Israel, hath responded with Christian enthusiasm to your Holy Word! Allelujah!'' Or if Susan, in the fire of the Holy Spirit, proclaims, ''Awesome, Israel; throw one for me! Better yet, set fire to that place! I'm a born-again ex-Catholic and like all ex-Catholics, I hate that Church with a vengeance. Hurray for you, awesome Israel ! '' Sure, that would make a kinship with her just about inevitable for you.

I think you have to leave now merely on account of you have no credibility. And *** you've lost face. *** May God give you grace to return soon, without your prejudices! Goodby!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, Pray for us; St. James Holy Apostle, The hearts of all ex-Catholics need your prayers; and pray for us all! AMEN /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 30, 2001.

Jmj

I'm not sure that I understand your point, Martyn.
Are you objecting to the term, "our separated brethren (or brothers and sisters?"
I hope that you are not objecting to it, because it is stated with brotherly love and concern. Some of us here are old enough to remember the great suspicion, dislike, and name-calling practiced mutually by many Catholics and Protestants before the Second Vatican Council (1962 - 1965). The term "separated brethren" was used by the Fathers of the Council and was hailed by people of many religious persuasions as an excellent, helpful, and conciliatory expression.

Martyn, you wrote: "[Protestants] believe that ... there are many paths but that they all lead to the one true god. Until we accept there right to believe this then there is not going to be any meaningful dialogue."
It is a simple fact that no one has a "right" to believe wrongly. The word, "right," is not the proper word to use -- but "freedom" is. "Rights" are give to mankind by God, and logic tells us that God, who is never wrong, would not grant anyone a "right to be wrong."
However, when you become aware of the teachings of Vatican II and the Catechism, you will know that the Church respects the freedom of other religious bodies and their members to believe what they choose (even if it is wrong).
We must guard against unjustly criticizing Catholicism.

God bless you. Happy Easter to all.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 15, 2001.

Response to The Orginal Sin

My theroy is that mary is in fact Eve ang god is forgiving her for her blastmethy by making her bear jesus

-- Element Earth (Sack@Saxon.com), January 12, 2002.