Why Catholicism

[RezaMikhaeil]

Thank you for your kind welcome

[quote] have heard this response before, and there is an answer. Mary's mother did not have to be sinless because Mary was not God. God can not be one with sin, but if Mary was sinful then how was He not one with the sin of Mary when in her womb? Mary was made sinless to give birth to God.[/quote] Here's what I dont understand, you said that St. Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless, but in order for her to be sinless, don't you think that her mother would also have to be sinless in order to birth a sinless child?

It's like you mentioned that St. Mary was sinless, otherwise Jesus would have had sin inherited by her, but why wouldn't she inherit the sinful nature of her mother, if Jesus would have inherited St. Mary's sinful nature, according to your theological stance, if St. Mary wasn't sinless?

In regards to "full of grace", that depends on how you define "grace", if you define it to me "perfect/flawless/without sin" then you're right, she wouldn't fit that criteria but if grace means:

[quote] Theology. a. the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God.
b. the influence or spirit of God operating in humans to regenerate or strengthen them.
c. a virtue or excellence of divine origin: the Christian graces.[/quote] Then St. Mary would have easily fit the criteria of being "full of grace" without nessessarily being sinless.

I'd definately agree that sexually [hence her virginity] she was sinless, but in every aspect of her life being sinless, I wouldn't agree because that in itself, is a charectoristic that only God alone holds [IE: Only God is sinless, that's part of what proves his divinity]. Ezekiel 44:2 clearly prophesies her ever-viriginity, [sinless sexual behavior and untouched] but it doesn't prove that she, herself, is sinless to the extent of God.

Why did Jesus Christ come down to die for our sins? Because he was the only individual that could attone for our sins right? Why was that? Because Jesus Christ was the only sinless individual on the face of this planet [and universe]. Its said that only a sinless man, can die for someone else that has sin [that is guilty of the punishment of death], yet none on this earth have been found to have been sinless, that's why Jesus Christ came down to save everyone from the bondage of such a law, that through him... the cost is paid and we're not bound to such a law [the wages of sin is death].

Note: I'm sure that you've heard the above, over and over again before, but I just stated it so everyone's on the same playing feild and understanding.

Reza

[desertwoman]

Made you post, made you post!

[Nathan]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1177290' date='Jan 26 2007, 11:06 PM']
My friend gave me a link saying that alot of people are converting to the orthodox church. The one thing that turned me off about orthodox churches is the "racism." so to say, I went to a Greek Orthodox Church and asked some questions, and they just brushed me off. Its kinda like they didn't want me to join their church due to the fact that I'm not Greek. This has happened time and time again, and it makes me believe that some of the orthodox churches are they for ethnic reasons. I could be wrong, and hope that I am, but its really disheartening.[/quote]

I would agree with this; I've felt it. There's a giant Coptic Orthodox centre/parish in my hometown that I've entered a few times, because they have a great bookstore. Whenever I go there, I get a lot of strange looks and vibes, like because I'm Causasian I'm not supposed to be there or something.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Nathan

[Era Might]

Hi Reza,

Just for clarification, are you Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox? I'm not completely familiar with the Oriental Orthodox, but I know that communion was ruptured between some of the Eastern Churches themselves because of Chalcedon.

[mortify]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1177257' date='Jan 26 2007, 10:45 PM']
and not Orthodox? I've been studying about Catholicism for about 2 years now and there are still things that I don't grasp or understand. During the course of the New Year, I've been talking to a real cool Coptic friend of mine and some of his reasons why he didn't choose to be Coptic Catholic and remained Coptic Orthodox.
[/quote]

Peace to you Desertwoman,

Quite frankly I've struggled with this. When I started coming back to Jesus I never had the Catholic Church in mind, my intent was on becoming Orthodox. I absolutely loved the Divine Liturgy and culture of the Orthodox. Catholicism seemed much to modernized for me. What held me back was the fact that my ancestors, going back a thousand years or so, were Catholic and I knew many Catholics who were saintly people, thus proving to me Catholicism is not some "bankrupt religion." So I gave Catholicism a shot.

I suggest you start with Matthew 16:18. Jesus makes a prophecy, His Church will be built on St Peter (thus the old saying, "Where there is Peter there is the Church") The orthodox try to pass this off by saying Jesus was referring to Peter's confession but this is nonsense. It is too obvious to deny, Jesus was referring to Peter himself.

Now to back this up there is a PLETHORA of Eastern witness to the primacy of the Pope. If you search, you will literally find statements by prominent Eastern Saints saying "Can one be part of the Church if one is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter?" The Orthodox pass this off as nothing more than "kissing up" to the Pope.

They turn our Lord's promise in Matthew 16:18 into nothing more than empty words. "Peter is first among equals." What does that mean? Sounds like they're trying to say we just give Peter and his Successors *verbal* honor, but otherwise it's meaningless. I suggest looking up Isaiah 22, and noting the parallels between Matthew 16:18. The Keys Jesus gave Peter are not empty promises of verbal honor, they are AUTHORITATIVE. The Orthodox will deny this of course, and even suggest that all the Apostles received the keys but this is not true. Only Peter received the keys. Other apostles who are in communion with Peter were able to [b]share[/b] in the power to "loosen and bind" but only if they are in communion with him.

The Orthodox denied the Holy Pontiff his rightful God given authority, and so they are in schism and some say even heresy.

Let me just add as a final note the Orthodox are not all that perfect. They have a good liturgy but they are just as imbedded with Modernism as we are. In some places the orthodox laity VOTE on how traditional the parish should be.

Anyway, I can rant on forever. Let us stick to the Successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ because Our Lord promised the Church built on Him will never be destroyed.


God bless,
Mort

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think trying to say that Mary HAD to be sinless is going to get you questions as to why Mary's mother should have had to be sinless too. saying Jesus could not be "at one" with sin brings the same quetion as to Mary's mother.

I think what you should b arguing, which you ay be but not very well, isn't that she HAD to be sinless, per se, but that she should (or had not per se) be sinless because Jesus is God. It's about the dignity. Dignity moreso than the mecanical nature of needing mary to be sinless.

If you follow..

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1177257' date='Jan 26 2007, 10:45 PM']
and not Orthodox? I've been studying about Catholicism for about 2 years now and there are still things that I don't grasp or understand. During the course of the New Year, I've been talking to a real cool Coptic friend of mine and some of his reasons why he didn't choose to be Coptic Catholic and remained Coptic Orthodox.

Of course, they don't view the Pope as infallible, and they don't believe in the IC. They do believe that Mary is the Theotokos, but she was a human and not born sinless. If Mary was born sinless, then she could have been sufficient for our sins (which I do agree about). I do believe that she is special for she bore the Christ, but she was just a human being like the rest of us. Full of grace yes, but born sinless... no. Plus, they have qualms about these revelations coming forth afterwards, that these were not what the apostles preached at first. They all preached about Christ being present in the Eucharist, and that there are seven sacraments and so forth, but the others are seen as addition to tradition that all the apostles taught in the four corners of the earth.
What say ye?
[/quote]

My primary reason for choosing Catholicism over Orthodoxy was the Catholic Church's consistent teaching on the fruitfulness of marriage, especially concerning contraception. Those who claim that contraceptive sex is not inherently sinful lose much of their argument against other sexual sins, like homosexual intercourse and masturbation. Maybe they can quote some Scripture, but they're missing the reason why God inspired that Scripture in the first place, and that's because He created sex as the way in which us humans best imitate God's loving and creative power. While one or the other can be isolated, the fullness of what God desires for us to share with our spouses is lost.

Concerning Mary, in no way does the Immaculate Conception take away from her humanity. If so, then Jesus wasn't fully human since he was also sinless. And Mary being without sin does [i]not[/i] mean that she could have been sacrificed for our sins! If that were so, then Jesus didn't have to be the Son of God, both human and divine, to satisfy the sacrifice.

Fact is, Mary needed to be sinless in order to be the spiritual mother for all Christians who, through Baptism and rebirth in Christ, are made sinless. As children of Eve, who rebelled against God and sinned, we inherited original sin; as children of Mary, who submitted to God through his fulfilling grace, we inherit eternal life!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

First, welcome to Phatmass.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1177592' date='Jan 27 2007, 06:02 AM']
Thank you for your kind welcome

Here's what I dont understand, you said that St. Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless, but in order for her to be sinless, don't you think that her mother would also have to be sinless in order to birth a sinless child?
[/quote]
I think this is a mistaken argument. I've had the same problem you have. Now, Jesus got His sinless nature from His mother; that is true. However, it is not true that she had to be sinless just so that He could be. God could always make Jesus the first one to be preserved from sin, rather than Mary. The primary reason Mary was sinless is because she had to be sinless in order to bear God (St. Anne, Mary's mother, did not have to bear God and therefore didn't have to be sinless). This fits with Mary's place as the Ark of the New Covenant. I'm sure you'll recall that any sinful person who touched the Ark of the Old Covenant died immediately, even if they touched it for good reason, because the Ark had to be completely pure. Mary, the New Ark, also must be completely pure, in order to bear God.

[quote]It's like you mentioned that St. Mary was sinless, otherwise Jesus would have had sin inherited by her, but why wouldn't she inherit the sinful nature of her mother, if Jesus would have inherited St. Mary's sinful nature, according to your theological stance, if St. Mary wasn't sinless?[/quote]

My comment above addresses this.

[quote]In regards to "full of grace", that depends on how you define "grace", if you define it to me "perfect/flawless/without sin" then you're right, she wouldn't fit that criteria but if grace means:

Then St. Mary would have easily fit the criteria of being "full of grace" without nessessarily being sinless.

I'd definately agree that sexually [hence her virginity] she was sinless, but in every aspect of her life being sinless, I wouldn't agree because that in itself, is a charectoristic that only God alone holds [IE: Only God is sinless, that's part of what proves his divinity]. Ezekiel 44:2 clearly prophesies her ever-viriginity, [sinless sexual behavior and untouched] but it doesn't prove that she, herself, is sinless to the extent of God.[/quote]

Consider Genesis 3:15. Enmity is what is placed between Mary and the serpent. Enmity is total opposition. Therefore, Mary would have to be radically and totally without sin, in order to have enmity with Satan. Futher, the Greek word in Luke which we translate as "full of grace" is a participle for "one who has been graced." A participle is a type of adjective and, as you know, an adjective describes the state of being in a subject or object. The Archangel Gabriel was saying that Mary was graced in her very being, which means something far deeper than just a sort of surface grace. Finally, the Tradition of the Church clearly has the Blessed Virgin as sinless and immaculate.

[quote]Why did Jesus Christ come down to die for our sins? Because he was the only individual that could attone for our sins right? Why was that? Because Jesus Christ was the only sinless individual on the face of this planet [and universe]. Its said that only a sinless man, can die for someone else that has sin [that is guilty of the punishment of death], yet none on this earth have been found to have been sinless, that's why Jesus Christ came down to save everyone from the bondage of such a law, that through him... the cost is paid and we're not bound to such a law [the wages of sin is death].[/quote]

I'm afraid this is only part of the argument. Not just any sinless man (or woman) could redeem all of mankind. Had Mary, being Immaculate, died for humanity, but Jesus had not, then humanity would not be redeemed. The problem is that a sinless person is required, but not just that. Sin is an offense and the gravity of the offense is determined by the status of the person offended (if you insult a parent, it is worse than insulting a stranger, although both are bad). God is infinite and therefore sin against Him is infinitely offensive. As such, an infinitely good and pleasing sacrifice must be made to set things right in justice. Only God Himself is capable of making this sacrifice (which is why it is pure gift). That means that another sinless person could exist without God's being appeased. Furthermore, your quote doesn't grasp how the Blessed Virgin was immaculate. She was preserved free from sin by the sacrifice of Christ, in anticipation of it. Mary, without Christ, could not be sinless.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1177774' date='Jan 27 2007, 01:30 PM']
I think trying to say that Mary HAD to be sinless is going to get you questions as to why Mary's mother should have had to be sinless too. saying Jesus could not be "at one" with sin brings the same quetion as to Mary's mother.
[/quote]

It was the divine nature of Christ that required Mary to be without sin. Since Mary lacked the divine nature, her mother did not need to be sinless. The Immaculate Conception affirms that her mother was, in fact, a sinner. Mary would have inherited the curse of original sin from her earthly mother if God did not intervene and redeem her through the timeless sacrifice her son would offer on the cross.

To be fully human is to be everything God created us to be, and that includes being without sin. Adam and Eve were fully human and created without sin, but they fell. Mary, our mother, and Jesus, our Father, are also fully human and it is through them that we look forward to our own humanity being redeemed Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection (since he was both fully human and fully divine).

[angelusdomini]

Praise be Jesus Christ,
With regard to the question to Mary's sinlessness, I think from what I have found so far (which isn't too much) is the quandry brought up by I believe St. Paul's statement basically saying that "All men have sinned" (I can't remember where this is- feel free to correct me). Ontop of this is why in the old testament "No one could See the Face of God and Live". Now we come to Our Lady, when the angel Gabriel appears to her at the annunciation, she beholds God in some fashion,

"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. " (Lk. 1:35 DRB)

Yet after this, she did not die but lived. How is this? since all the children of Adam have sinned and she is a daughter of Adam. So, from my understanding it has not been so much for the benefit of Christ for indeed He is God and is in need of nothing from mere creatures. More so it is for her own benefit, for she being a daughter of Adam was in need of redemption as well. The question would be the manner of her salvation. So that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not to say that she was thus free from the need of a redeemer but more like the "proof" of her redemption. God preserved her from all stain of sin from her conception by virtue of the same sacrifice through which all men are saved. This is hinted at in Genesis when God punishes Adam, Eve and the serpent for their sin.

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she [he/it] shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." (cf. Gn. 3:15 DRB)

One of the results of Original sin is that all men have an affinity to sin and so are under the dominion of the serpent. Therefore an enmity between the woman and the serpent would have to imply that she was not under dominion of the serpent which comes from Original Sin.
I believe Fulton Sheen gave this example once saying if a man saves another who has fallen into a sewage hole AFTER he has fallen in and saves another BEFORE he falls in (pre-emptive), which of the two has he saved? Are they saved in the exact same fashion? Is any of the two more saved than the other?
Anyway, I hope that this does not cause any confusion. Don Scotus, a Franciscan I believe is the one who was able to articulate the Immaculate Conception and all this did come from the querry that had lingered on for over a millenium as to how Mary a daughter of Man (adam) was not only able to behold God, but also to have Him dwell in her- and yet she lived?

Pax et Bonum. A.M.D.G

Edited January 27, 2007 by Angelus_Domini

[RezaMikhaeil]

[color="red"]I suggest you start with Matthew 16:18. Jesus makes a prophecy, His Church will be built on St Peter (thus the old saying, "Where there is Peter there is the Church") The orthodox try to pass this off by saying Jesus was referring to Peter's confession but this is nonsense. It is too obvious to deny, Jesus was referring to Peter himself.[/color]

Well actually the Coptic Church has never been under Roman rule or jurisdiction. We've always had our own patriarch, etc. St. Mark founded our church and wasn't subject to a church that St. Peter founded either. St. Peter didn't just found the Roman Church but also had his hand in the Syriac Orthodox Church that also traces their foundation back to him also, so it doesn't make someone "special".

[color="red"]It was the divine nature of Christ that required Mary to be without sin. Since Mary lacked the divine nature, her mother did not need to be sinless.[/color]

Where in prophesy does it say that St. Mary the Theotokos had to be sinless in order to bear God? I don't recall such a prophesy, please enlighten me.

[color="red"]Yet after this, she did not die but lived. How is this? since all the children of Adam have sinned and she is a daughter of Adam. So, from my understanding it has not been so much for the benefit of Christ for indeed He is God and is in need of nothing from mere creatures. More so it is for her own benefit, for she being a daughter of Adam was in need of redemption as well. The question would be the manner of her salvation. So that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not to say that she was thus free from the need of a redeemer but more like the "proof" of her redemption.[/color]

Enoch didn't die either, but he wasn't perfect by no means. In regards to saying that she still was in need of a redeemer like everyone else, that is almost contradictory.

If she was perfect [having never sinned and violated the law] then she wouldn't be in need of a redeemer, because there would be nothing to redeem because she wouldn't be a slave to it.

[color="red"]Now, Jesus got His sinless nature from His mother; that is true.[/color]

I'm not sure if that's true or not, it's not found in scriptures or at the councils that affirmed and compiled the Bible.

[color="red"]This fits with Mary's place as the Ark of the New Covenant. I'm sure you'll recall that any sinful person who touched the Ark of the Old Covenant died immediately, even if they touched it for good reason, because the Ark had to be completely pure. Mary, the New Ark, also must be completely pure, in order to bear God.[/color]

I guess that's but a single way of viewing it, but I didn't find her to be a Saint because of this, but rather because of her actions while on this earth. She chose to remain a virgin, to be dedicated to God, not nessessarily out of fear but love. I believe that Mary's decision of saying "let it be so" (luke 1) was what made her a saint. Therefore she gave herself to God, rather then God forcing his prophesies upon her.

[color="red"]Therefore, Mary would have to be radically and totally without sin, in order to have enmity with Satan[/color]

She doesn't have to be sinless in order for this prophesy to work thou...

[color="blue"]Emnity:a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism.[/color]

[color="red"]Futher, the Greek word in Luke which we translate as "full of grace" is a participle for "one who has been graced." A participle is a type of adjective and, as you know, an adjective describes the state of being in a subject or object. The Archangel Gabriel was saying that Mary was graced in her very being, which means something far deeper than just a sort of surface grace. Finally, the Tradition of the Church clearly has the Blessed Virgin as sinless and immaculate.[/color]

That could be but a single interpretation but I wouldnt say that it's universal.

[color="red"]I'm afraid this is only part of the argument. Not just any sinless man (or woman) could redeem all of mankind.[/color]

Oh I agree that she couldn't die for all of humanity but she could have died for someone, because she would have been an acceptable sacrifice to die for someone, if she was sinless but the point is that nobody was sinless, so there wasn't people that were sinless that were able to die for those that had sin because everyone was sinless and screwed basically.

[color="red"]My primary reason for choosing Catholicism over Orthodoxy was the Catholic Church's consistent teaching on the fruitfulness of marriage, especially concerning contraception. Those who claim that contraceptive sex is not inherently sinful lose much of their argument against other sexual sins, like homosexual intercourse and masturbation. Maybe they can quote some Scripture, but they're missing the reason why God inspired that Scripture in the first place, and that's because He created sex as the way in which us humans best imitate God's loving and creative power. While one or the other can be isolated, the fullness of what God desires for us to share with our spouses is lost.[/color]

This right here could be explored very indepth. I'm going to say that God didn't just create sex [and sex's only purpose] isn't just to make babies, but it's also to show love and affection. There are those that feel [thou I'm against contraceptives also] that they're not ready to have a child, to care and support that child and chose to have contraceptive sex, of course they're denying some of the great blessings with their worldly mind but that isn't sexs only purpose. It's also to join and bond two souls together in love. If it was a sin to have sexual relations but not have a child, then barren women would be sinning for having sexual relations with their husband, though it was out of love.

[color="red"]I think trying to say that Mary HAD to be sinless is going to get you questions as to why Mary's mother should have had to be sinless too. saying Jesus could not be "at one" with sin brings the same quetion as to Mary's mother.[/color]

No doubt

[color="red"]Quite frankly I've struggled with this. When I started coming back to Jesus I never had the Catholic Church in mind, my intent was on becoming Orthodox. I absolutely loved the Divine Liturgy and culture of the Orthodox. Catholicism seemed much to modernized for me. What held me back was the fact that my ancestors, going back a thousand years or so, were Catholic and I knew many Catholics who were saintly people, thus proving to me Catholicism is not some "bankrupt religion." So I gave Catholicism a shot.[/color]

Yeah I wish that the original rites could be established again and that the churches could be in communion with each other too...

[color="red"]The Keys Jesus gave Peter are not empty promises of verbal honor, they are AUTHORITATIVE. The Orthodox will deny this of course, and even suggest that all the Apostles received the keys but this is not true. Only Peter received the keys. Other apostles who are in communion with Peter were able to share in the power to "loosen and bind" but only if they are in communion with him.[/color]

I think that you have to define what "loosen and bind in heaven" means, some interpret it as St. Peter and his See have the power to change the doctrines of the church that always have been, but most interpret it otherwise.

[color="red"]In some places the orthodox laity VOTE on how traditional the parish should be.[/color]

I'd be interested in learning on what places these are

[color="red"]Just for clarification, are you Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox? I'm not completely familiar with the Oriental Orthodox, but I know that communion was ruptured between some of the Eastern Churches themselves because of Chalcedon.[/color]

I'm Oriental Orthodox, you're right and definately reject the council of Chalcedon

[color="red"]I would agree with this; I've felt it. There's a giant Coptic Orthodox centre/parish in my hometown that I've entered a few times, because they have a great bookstore. Whenever I go there, I get a lot of strange looks and vibes, like because I'm Causasian I'm not supposed to be there or something.[/color]

I'm sorry that you got that experience, I'm Coptic but not geneolocically Egyptian and have never got that, but it would be for a variety of reasons but His Holiness Pope Shenouda isn't like that and I know that he wouldn't agree with that attitude either. Sadly I'd found Roman Churches that also give me similar looks for knowing that I'm Coptic also and similiar situations with race. I believe that you're going to find good and bad churches in every church and that it doesn't reflect the church as a whole, just as there is good and bad Roman Priests.

Reza

Edited January 27, 2007 by Era Might

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Reza, you can only use a certain number of quote boxes in a single post. Try using color coding instead.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1177885' date='Jan 27 2007, 03:50 PM']
Where in prophesy does it say that St. Mary the Theotokos had to be sinless in order to bear God? I don't recall such a prophesy, please enlighten me.[/quote]

As I've pointed out, it doesn't say so in prophecy, but it does say so in typology (Ark of the Covenant).

[quote]If she was perfect [having never sinned and violated the law] then she wouldn't be in need of a redeemer, because there would be nothing to redeem because she wouldn't be a slave to it.[/quote]

This is not true because the Church's teaching is clearly that she needed a Savior (she herself called God her Savior). We simply teach that she was saved in a pre-emptive way.

[quote]I'm not sure if that's true or not, it's not found in scriptures or at the councils that affirmed and compiled the Bible.[/quote]

Jesus got His human nature from His mother...that's what humans do. Therefore, all this hinges on proving that she was immaculate. It's in Scripture, as I've shown, and it's also in the Tradition:

Mary was compared to the pre-fallen Eve, called "all holy," "all pure," "purer than angels," "miracle of grace," and "altogether without sin."

"Mary was created utterly equal with pre-fallen Eve." -St. Ephraem

"Mary was free from all stain of sin." -St. Ambrose

"Mary was Immaculate." -St. Severus

"Mary was pre-purified." -St. Sophronius

"She was the entirely immaculate Virgin." -St. Andrew of Crete

"Mary was conceived by a sanctifying action." -Theognostes

[quote] I guess that's but a single way of viewing it, but I didn't find her to be a Saint because of this, but rather because of her actions while on this earth. She chose to remain a virgin, to be dedicated to God, not nessessarily out of fear but love. I believe that Mary's decision of saying "let it be so" (luke 1) was what made her a saint. Therefore she gave herself to God, rather then God forcing his prophesies upon her.[/quote]

She didn't choose to be a virgin out of fear, but out of love. I wouldn't say anything different. However, Mary's fiat was made with her whole life, not just with the one occasion she had the chance to say it. She was entirely dedicated to God's will.

Further, God wanted Mary to have a completely free choice...as you said, free from fear. We fear God (in the bad sense of fear) because of the fall. For Mary to make a fully loving act, she had to be free from sin and all stain of sin, so that the effects of the fall would not contribute, thus allowing her fiat to be completely free.

[quote]Oh I agree that she couldn't die for all of humanity but she could have died for someone, because she would have been an acceptable sacrifice to die for someone, if she was sinless but the point is that nobody was sinless, so there wasn't people that were sinless that were able to die for those that had sin because everyone was sinless and screwed basically.[/quote]

Mary could not have died for anyone. A single sin is beyond our ability to repay God. Not even an immaculate, pure, virginal woman could take away sin with a total self-sacrifice. Only God could.

[quote]This right here could be explored very indepth. I'm going to say that God didn't just create sex [and sex's only purpose] isn't just to make babies, but it's also to show love and affection. There are those that feel [thou I'm against contraceptives also] that they're not ready to have a child, to care and support that child and chose to have contraceptive sex, of course they're denying some of the great blessings with their worldly mind but that isn't sexs only purpose. It's also to join and bond two souls together in love. If it was a sin to have sexual relations but not have a child, then barren women would be sinning for having sexual relations with their husband, though it was out of love.[/quote]

Union in love is always meant to be open to life. Union and procreation cannot be separated. The Church teaches that both are necessary. We don't favor one over the other, nor do we teach that one can be sought, but not the other. Marital love should image the love of the Trinity. The Father gives Himself completely to the Son and the Son completely to the Father. That is love. However, if they decided to keep the Holy Spirit out of it, it would not be love. The love the Father and Son share is so great that it is a third Person. To contracept is to intentionally limit the love of the union by keeping that love from reaching its full potential. Therefore, contraception does not help love, but hinders it.

As for barren women, that's not intentional, so it can't be sinful.

[quote] I think that you have to define what "loosen and bind in heaven" means, some interpret it as St. Peter and his See have the power to change the doctrines of the church that always have been, but most interpret it otherwise.[/quote]

No one has the power to change doctrine. We only have the power to further define and explain what is true...not to change truth.

I recommend reading the following. It's written by my Mariology professor, who is one of the world's leading scholars on the Blessed Virgin:

[url="http://motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=924&Itemid=83"]http://motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?op...4&Itemid=83[/url]

[Era Might]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1177885' date='Jan 27 2007, 02:50 PM']I'm Oriental Orthodox, you're right and definately reject the council of Chalcedon [/quote]
Is it just the Council of Chalcedon that you don't accept, or all subsequent Councils as well?

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1177885' date='Jan 27 2007, 03:50 PM']
[color="red"]I suggest you start with Matthew 16:18. Jesus makes a prophecy, His Church will be built on St Peter (thus the old saying, "Where there is Peter there is the Church") The orthodox try to pass this off by saying Jesus was referring to Peter's confession but this is nonsense. It is too obvious to deny, Jesus was referring to Peter himself.[/color]

Well actually the Coptic Church has never been under Roman rule or jurisdiction. We've always had our own patriarch, etc. St. Mark founded our church and wasn't subject to a church that St. Peter founded either. St. Peter didn't just found the Roman Church but also had his hand in the Syriac Orthodox Church that also traces their foundation back to him also, so it doesn't make someone "special".
[/quote]

What do you make of these Coptic witnesses to Petrine primacy?

From the Saints in Alexandria:
[b] St. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (306-311 A.D.): [/b]
"Peter, set above the Apostles." (Peter of Alexandria, Canon. ix, Galland, iv. p. 98)

[b]St. Athanasius (362 A.D.): [/b]
"Rome is called the Apostolic throne." (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35)

[b]St. Macarius of Egypt (371 A.D.):[/b]
"Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood." (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)

[b]St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424):[/b]
"He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word 'petra' (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church." (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131)

"He (Christ) promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd." (Cyril, Comm. on Matt., ad loc.)

"They (the Apostles) strove to learn through one, that preeminent one, Peter." (Cyril, Ib. 1. ix. p. 736)

[b]Eulogius of Alexandria (581 A.D.):[/b]
"Neither to John, nor to any other of the disciples, did our Savior say, 'I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' but only to Peter." (Eulogius, Lib. ii. Cont. Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth, cod. 280)

From Antioch:
[b]Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450):[/b]
"I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds." (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

"If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives." (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

From:
[url="http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm#Alexandria"]http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/eccl....htm#Alexandria[/url]

These quotes are all over the net. I suggest also looking into this site:
[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/[/url]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1177885' date='Jan 27 2007, 03:50 PM']
[color="red"]Quite frankly I've struggled with this. When I started coming back to Jesus I never had the Catholic Church in mind, my intent was on becoming Orthodox. I absolutely loved the Divine Liturgy and culture of the Orthodox. Catholicism seemed much to modernized for me. What held me back was the fact that my ancestors, going back a thousand years or so, were Catholic and I knew many Catholics who were saintly people, thus proving to me Catholicism is not some "bankrupt religion." So I gave Catholicism a shot.[/color]

Yeah I wish that the original rites could be established again and that the churches could be in communion with each other too...
[/quote]

That will require those in schism humbly accepting our Lord's wishes and abandoning any heresy. It does not mean Christians in other parts of the world will have to adopt a "Romish" appearance.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1177885' date='Jan 27 2007, 03:50 PM']
[color="red"]The Keys Jesus gave Peter are not empty promises of verbal honor, they are AUTHORITATIVE. The Orthodox will deny this of course, and even suggest that all the Apostles received the keys but this is not true. Only Peter received the keys. Other apostles who are in communion with Peter were able to share in the power to "loosen and bind" but only if they are in communion with him.[/color]

I think that you have to define what "loosen and bind in heaven" means, some interpret it as St. Peter and his See have the power to change the doctrines of the church that always have been, but most interpret it otherwise.
[/quote]

What's important is recognizing that the power to loosen and bind stems from communion with St Peter and his Successors. It is not a right that exists within itself. So what of those who break from the "Apostolic Throne?"

"Neither to John, nor to any other of the disciples, did our Savior say, 'I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' but only to Peter." (Eulogius, Lib. ii. Cont. Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth, cod. 280)

Edited January 27, 2007 by mortify