An accurate example, and first you must understand that scripture is only a part of the deposit of faith, and it is not the source of all church teaching. Catholics hold the apostles taught more than was written in the books of the Bible. This is what we refer to as Sacred Tradition. Paul instructs Christians "to hold fast to what has been taught to you either through word of mouth or in a letter." Remember that Oral teaching was the main vehicle of the early Church as there were no bibles, and the writings of the apostles and their deciples, had little geographical reach, and would not even be declared cannon until the 4th century at the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage. Your logic is faulty.Note that, Paul did not except Jesus in the first cited quote. So this "all" is not universal. Your second quote, does not indicate that Christ is alone in not knowing Sin, and that isn't even the point of the narrative. Your conclusion is an illogical jump, as Mary's sinless life was a grace afforded her by God, not something she acheived under hew own power. Furthermore it is a belief that has existed from the earliest days of the Church. The Church Father's interpreted the Angel's greeting at the Annunciation, "Hail, full of grace" to mean that Mary was free from the curse of original sin, and therefore capable of living a life free from sin.
When I say you are taking the quotes out of context I mean this: the various books of the Bible were written to particular audiences with a particular purpose. This is especially true of the epistles. To dumb them down to soundbites to make a point is foolish. Call no man father is a great example. The apostles did not interpret it to be a universal instruction, as they referred to themselves as spiritual fathers. The quote was presented in a narrative meant to illustrate that none are above God. But, their objections, I would argue are faulty, and are largely ignorant of Catholic theology. You cannot argue that Catholics deify Mary, when no Catholic teaching professes that Mary is a diety. Catholics beleive those that are Saints share in the beatific vision, and know what God knows. It isn't because of their divinity they are able to hear our prayers, but rather because of God's. Catholics do beleive Christ is the only redeemer and mediator. As second Vatican Council Clarified, Mary's role as a mediatrix is subordinate, and based on Christ's role as the sole redeemer and mediator. I equate this to a corporate structure. A vendor can only be paid if the payment is approved by the Controller, however, the Controller designates certain responsiblities to his subordinates. See http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/ for a great summary of the doctrine. As stated above scripture is only a portion of the deposit of Faith.
Father Supafan, can you please tell me why I had to go through a class called pre Cana to get married in the Catholic Church. What's the point? And by the way, even though it was awesome seeing my wife in her wedding dress, I got married at a Mass ceremony in 2008 and my knees still hurt.
Speaking of faulty logic, you claim the first scripture does not exclude Jesus (i.e. Jesus is a sinner) but that directly contradicts Corinthians. And you claim that Corinthians does not exclude Mary (i.e. Mary is also a sinner). This directly contracts Immaculate Conception and its tenet that Mary is without sin. What scripture says this? And what does it matter how she was sinless? If she was sinless, then she is divine, lest Romans be contradicted as well. Then if Romans is to be believed, she must be divine.
No what is shows is that given a propper context your interpretation of Corinthians is wrong. Already answered. Scripture does not say Mary was without sin. It is part of Christian teaching known as Sacred Tradition which is held in equal accord to scripture. This does not contradict Romans as Romans does not say one must be divine to be without sin. False.
So all of the gospels must be taken as parables, not the truth? Is that a Catholoc doctrine? Citation? It certainly is a convenient excuse when the scriptures are contradictory or say things that don't support your argument. They were Catholics when they left the Church. I would say that Martin Luther was not ignorant of Catholic theology at all. The point is that there is widespread and long-existing objections to the deification of Mary, despite your opinions. I did not make it up. I just demonstrated that this has been argued for five centuries at least. It is a fact that Mary is prayed to. Who but a diety could hear those prayers? The definition of prayer is "A solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship." This squarely places Mary as an object of worship, defined as "The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity". You must understand that astute people are going to feel that someone who is worshipped and prayed to is being deified in some fashion. Mormons believe that all members of the church are saints. Protestants believe that saints are hogwash. Agnostics have no idea and don't pretend to. None of this is relevant to the deification of Mary. There is growing support within the Catholic Church now for a fifth and final Marian dogma to be proclaimed, that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces and Advocate. The movement Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici is at the forefront of the growing enthusiasm for this fifth dogma. Since 1993 this movement has collected more than five million signatures in 157 countries in support of the proclamation of this dogma. Mary may be pronounced Co-Savior, yet.
Clearly you can assign it a context in which there are no conflicts. Clearly I can assign it a context in which contradiction is obvious. At least I cited actual scripture. There is no wrong or right here, only inconsistency in interpretation leading to the confusion, cynicism. and doubt about Mary's Holy status that widely exists. But Romans states quite clearly that ALL have sinned. If Sacred Tradition (equal to the scriptures!) holds that Mary is without sin, then she is not one of us! She is more like a Co-Mediator, Redeemer, and Advocate, n'est-ce pas? Prove it.
My biggest problem with any of this is that it is all based off of the assumption that the Bible is indeed the divine word of God. Debating someone whose only reference is an archaic text that they claim is the divine word of God and because of their belief that this text is the divine word of God, any rebuttal you offer is inherently heretical and therefore dismissed without consideration. It is like trying to argue with a child whose only rebuttal is "I know you are but what am I." The sooner we abandoned the ongoing efforts to perpetuate this lie and focus our energies on finding the truth, the better off we will be as a society. If there is a God, and I believe that there is, it is not like you and I. It isn't the hormonal teenage girl as depicted in the Old Testament, it isn't prone to human emotion or desires for revenge or given to fits of rage followed by ages of peaceful bliss. If there is a God, it will be better explained by science than by religion. Science, at least, has a means of determining truth: the scientific method. Religion is no more interested in truth than I am in watching women's basketball.
The things you are pointing out in scripture are not contradictions. They are speaking to different matters. If you said the tree has brown leaves, and later said the tree has green leaves have you contradicted yourself? Maybe on the surface, but understanding the broader meaning of each of your statements is key. Were you talking about the tree at different times of the year? Were you talking about the same tree? Were you speaking literally or allegorically? You have to know all those things before you can determine if you have contradicted your statements. Your rush to point out what you perceive to be contradictions has missed a wide swath of critical analysis that is necessary to make such a judgement. Luther rejected Marian doctrines based on the fact they weren't mentioned in scripture. His logic is especially poor, as the idea that revelation can only come from scripture is not scritural. The fact that many object, and have or a long time only indicates that these objectors don't understand what they are actually objecting too. As a practicing Catholic I can tell you that Mary is neither worshipped nor deified, and claims that she is are errant and lack understanding of the teachings. Already answered. See above. Astute people usually show some ability to understand nuance, an art completely lost on you boss. Might I propose that people who actually practice a religion may have more understanding of the teachings of that religion. The Church doesn't define dogmas based on popular appeal. I don't think the doctrine will ever be studied or defined, as the historical basis is said to be inadequate and the essence of the teaching is already encompassed by other dogmas. Benedict XVI stated the essence of the Doctrine is already part of Catholic Marian teaching, and that further definition is not warranted.
