Questions For Catholics Part 1
With a little prompting from my priest, I am beginning a
series of responses to Moriel Ministries which has presented "Five
Questions for Catholics," however the article title says the number is
thirty-three and perhaps through secondary questions they reach the higher
number, but the inconsistency is noted upfront.
Who is this? James Jacob Prasch (Jacob Prasch) was
raised in a mixed household of Catholic and Jewish. He states he was
"forced" to attend Catholic school as a youth, but also attending the
Jewish Community Center. This left him agnostic and in college while he
was attempting to use science to disprove Christianity but came to the
conclusion that it took more faith to reject Jesus and the Bible than to accept
it. Subscribing to Marxism and the "hippee culture" and nearly
subcombing to drugs, he hit bottom and "put his faith in Jesus."
He and Moriel (have not found more about Moriel on the site which bares
his name) got together in Moriel Ministries, which Prasch is now the director.
Without further ado, let us proceed into the series of questions presented to Catholics.
https://www.moriel.org/five-questions/33-questions-for-catholics.html
The first question we come to on Moriel's homepage is "Should I believe Mary or the Vatican?"
Without further ado, let us proceed into the series of questions presented to Catholics.
https://www.moriel.org/five-questions/33-questions-for-catholics.html
The first question we come to on Moriel's homepage is "Should I believe Mary or the Vatican?"
Without doubt Mary – her real name was “Miryam” – Mary
the mother of Jesus was the greatest woman who ever lived.
The angel Gabriel. the archangel “Gabriy’el”, “the mighty one of God” appeared to her and told her that God Himself would become incarnate inside of her, she would be the mother of the Messiah, the Savior, who would save His people from their sin. This is the greatest woman who ever lived. And the greatest woman who ever lived, who has ever lived, was told she’s going to be the mother of the Savior who would save His people from their sin in the Magnificat in St. Luke’s Gospel. (Lk. 1:46-55) The only thing that the greatest woman who ever lived could say when she was told she was the greatest woman who ever lived – “Blessed are you among women” (Lk. 1:42) – and she was told she’s going to be the mother of the Savior who would save His people from their sin is, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior”. (Lk. 1:47)
If the greatest woman who ever lived tells me that she needs to be saved from sin, that she needs a Savior when she's told she's going to be the mother of the Savior who would save people from sin, who am I to argue with the greatest woman who ever lived? Who am I to argue with St. Luke? When God says, “All have sinned, all fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), “None is righteous, no not one”, (Rom. 3:10) Well who am I to argue with God? I believe Mary, but we have Ineffablilis Deus, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
If all have sinned and all full short of the glory of God, and if Mary said she needs to be saved from sin, who do I believe: Mary or the Vatican? Personally, I believe Mary. I'm convinced Mary was right; I'm convinced that Mary told the truth; I'm convinced all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God.
The angel Gabriel. the archangel “Gabriy’el”, “the mighty one of God” appeared to her and told her that God Himself would become incarnate inside of her, she would be the mother of the Messiah, the Savior, who would save His people from their sin. This is the greatest woman who ever lived. And the greatest woman who ever lived, who has ever lived, was told she’s going to be the mother of the Savior who would save His people from their sin in the Magnificat in St. Luke’s Gospel. (Lk. 1:46-55) The only thing that the greatest woman who ever lived could say when she was told she was the greatest woman who ever lived – “Blessed are you among women” (Lk. 1:42) – and she was told she’s going to be the mother of the Savior who would save His people from their sin is, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior”. (Lk. 1:47)
If the greatest woman who ever lived tells me that she needs to be saved from sin, that she needs a Savior when she's told she's going to be the mother of the Savior who would save people from sin, who am I to argue with the greatest woman who ever lived? Who am I to argue with St. Luke? When God says, “All have sinned, all fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), “None is righteous, no not one”, (Rom. 3:10) Well who am I to argue with God? I believe Mary, but we have Ineffablilis Deus, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
If all have sinned and all full short of the glory of God, and if Mary said she needs to be saved from sin, who do I believe: Mary or the Vatican? Personally, I believe Mary. I'm convinced Mary was right; I'm convinced that Mary told the truth; I'm convinced all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God.
Well, first off in the passage cited is not the Blessed
Mother admitting to have sinned, but only "My spirit rejoices in God my
Savior." Did Mary need a savior? Yes! In the definition
of the Immaculate Conception (hereafter IC) of the the Blessed Virgin Mary (found here) it says:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which
holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her
conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view
of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free
from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to
be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
Note, it says she was preserved from the stain of original
sin, not the penalty! The Blessed Virgin, whom Catholics would agree with
Moriel/Prasch, is the "greatest woman who ever lived," did not need
to be freed from the stain of any actual sin - but from the penalty of original
sin. The Blessed Virgin therefore too needed the Savior, the Redeemer,
the Messiah. It should also be noted that in the entire document of
Ineffabilis Deus, that one sentence is the only "infallible" statement.
The author of the article (whether it be Moriel or Prasch) goes on to say:
The author of the article (whether it be Moriel or Prasch) goes on to say:
The Roman church speculated and then deduced that if that
was the case, Jesus would have been born from a sinful vessel. But if Mary had
no sin, by the same token that would have to mean that Mary's mother had no
sin, and that Mary's grandmother had no sin, and that Mary’s great-grandmother
had no sin all the way back to Eve. But we know Eve had sin and we know Mary
had sin.
Yes, we know Eve had sin, but Scripture does not tell us
that Mary had sin and again the definition of the IC only states she was
preserved from the stain, not the penalty. We also do not need to buy
into the slippery slope (invalid) argument that if Mary was without sin, her
mother must have been and her grandmother, etc., etc., for the Catholic
teaching on the IC is that the Blessed Virgin, alone, was singled out "in
the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted
by Almighty God." So not only is the Moriel/Prasch argument a
slippery slope, it is a straw man built upon a faulty premise that the author
proceeds to knock down. If we know our Catholic Faith, we are not taken
in by such invalid argumentation.
The author goes on to state and ask:
The author goes on to state and ask:
Again, this doctrine was not proclaimed until modern
times, until the 20th Century. Do you believe Mary was wrong?
The definition of the IC was proclaimed in 1864, that would
make it the 19th Century, which is a minor error here, but nonetheless, an
error. One would think that an author who is based in science would not
make such an error and especially publish it. Am I the first to point this out
to him? It will be interesting to see if that statement changes on their
website. The timing of the actual definition is really inconsequential,
and that would lead us to question Moriel/Prasch - does the Church have the
authority to bind or loose such things? The answer to that is a
resounding YES! In Matthew
16:18-19, in a singular decree our Blessed Lord bestows that authority on
St. Peter, alone and then two chapters later that authority is also given to
the Apostles (the Bishoprick) as a group in Matthew
18:18, but that takes us down another (however much more fundamental) path,
so, for now, let us not digress.
Now, to answer the question, "Do you believe Mary was wrong?" No, as stated earlier, the Blessed Virgin was not wrong, but the premise of the Moriel/Prasch argument is wrong which leaves them with nothing but a house of cards which has just been knocked down.
Now, to answer the question, "Do you believe Mary was wrong?" No, as stated earlier, the Blessed Virgin was not wrong, but the premise of the Moriel/Prasch argument is wrong which leaves them with nothing but a house of cards which has just been knocked down.
No comments:
Post a Comment