yeah i would agree with this but i dont jst believe in scripture alone. the apostles evangelized all over the world and had councils. keep in mind they had first hand experience with mary. they had established this. you can also look at the assumption😭.
This is going to be a long comment because it deals with some very serious accusations, but I encourage you to read it all to maybe better understand the Catholic perspective, even if you still don't agree. It could help strengthen your faith or bring you to a new truth. Remember Proverbs 12:15 and Proverbs 18:13? These verses really helped me become more open-minded! This is with all kindness, but this video isn't well-researched. It's just small things such as using chatgpt as a definition source, even though it is already known to be biased, make up information and not be trustworthy and not stating Eastern orthodoxy in this video even though they also believe in the sinlessness of Mary. Yet it s not mentioned anywhere in this video, nor the 1500-year-old belief in her sinlessness. If the people closest to Christ believe something, shouldn't we? I think you should research church history because it is extremely important when understanding our beliefs as Christanity is a belief system revealed thousands of years ago with intellectually rich minds coming together to give us answers, these shouldn't be forgotten in our own personal pursuit for the truth. I also want to mention that we do not need to derive everything from the bible as the bible wasn't even compiled until the 4th century. While none of our beliefs can contradict the divine word, we are told the importance of tradition in 2 Thess. 2:15 and 2 Tim 2:2, so we have to be careful, and when in doubt, we should refer to tradition to see what our past brothers and sisters did. Firstly, when we discuss scripture, it's essential to understand the context of all the words we speak. If we look at verses in isolation its easy to reach conclusions that are not true. For Romans 3:23, it is essential to note that Paul is arguing that both Jews and Gentiles need salvation through Jesus Christ and that this is not achieved through the Law of Moses. So when we look at Romans 3:22-24, we get a clearer picture. Rom 3:22-24, 29-3: "For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. . . . Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is on, and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith”. Here we see that when Paul says that, “there is no distinction,” he means that there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. When he explains this statement by saying “for all have sinned” he means sin characterizes both Jews and Gentiles. But, we have to recognize that his use of the term "all” is hyperbole because Paul does not believe this is an exceptionless norm. Later in Romans, where Paul appeals to the case of Jacob and Esau and speaks of the time when “they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11). Paul therefore, recognizes that the unborn children have not yet committed personal sin, making them an exception to the “all have sinned” norm he spoke of earlier. Paul also makes the exception for Jesus when he acknowledges the sinlessness in his adult life. Paul says that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21), and belief in Jesus' sinlessness is attested in multiple passages in the New Testament (Heb. 4:15, 7:26, 9:14; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). From this single verse alone, we see that it refers to personal sin and not original sin and that there are 2 exceptions: babies and Jesus Christ. If Jesus, as the “Second Adam” (Rom. 5:12-19, 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45-49), is an exception to what Paul says in Romans 3:23, there may also be an exception for Mary as the “Second Eve.” Even thought you already discussed why Rom 3:23 doesn't say except for Jesus because His sinlessness was already a known, common and accepted fact at the time, why can you not hold this same standard for Mary? Mary's sinlessness was widely believed in the early church and common knowledge between all her followers. Here are some examples of church fathers living in the time of Paul and close to his time agreeing in the sinlessness of Mary: “[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’” (Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]). Another church father: “So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . ” (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]). The claims of Mary not receiving birth pains refers to Genesis 3:16 where God says childbirth is painful because of sin, her lack of these pains indicates her sinlessness. Another church father: “[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]). And even more than these! You state your not sure how Mary didn't receive original sin from her mother but you also make no attempts to learn how! Even if you learn how and you still don't believe that's whatever but to deny yourself the chance at a possible truth even if it disagrees with your current truth is doing a disservice to yourself. The main problem I have with this video is your lack to truly understand the Catholic perspective. Our beliefs are our beliefs for a reason and we make sure they make sense, they are too complex to be refuted in a 9 minute video, spending only 2 MINUTES on Rom 3:23, these aren't trivial matters to play around with. Our priests go to school for years to understand, this aren't simple topics to put our mouths on and we should be aware of that. And I agree with you! Mary did not need to be sinless in order to for Jesus to be sinless however, Mary’s sinlessness derives from the fact that she is the human vessel through which God himself became man. It was from her flesh that Christ received his human nature. Of course God did not need to do this, the same way Jesus did not need to be born from a virgin, but God chose this method and that should be respected. The fact that Mary was a virgin and conceived Christ isn’t so much a statement about Mary as it is about the dignity of the child she carried in her womb. Likewise (and ultimately) the Immaculate Conception isn’t so much a statement about the dignity of Mary as it is a statement about the dignity of her son. It points out who he is-God incarnate. Go to my second comment to read the rest as I'm going over the character limit lol!
Part 2: I think the problem with your interpretation is that you view it from an English perspective. Language influences the way we think and nothing can ever be fully translated without loosing some of its initla meaning. The bible wasn't written in English, it was written in koine greek. Lets view what the original version had to say. Luke 1:28 says “και εισελθών ο άγγελος προς αυτήν είπε: χαίρε κεχαριτωμένη, ο Κύριος μετά σου, ευλογημένη συ εν γυναιξί. That literally translated into : and the angel came in unto her and said; Hail, you who are full of grace/highly favoured, the Lord is with you; blessed you are among women. The meaning of this verse comes down to the translation of kecharitomene. The angel uses the word kecharitoménê. Kecharitoménê is the perfect passive participle of the passive voice of the verb “χαριτόω” charitóō, meaning : I fill someone with grace, I favour someone. The passive voice is “charitóomai” meaning: I'm granted grace and favour, I'm favoured. Kecharitoménê, therefore, means that she was filled with grace, she was favoured by God, sometime in the past and continues being graced, favoured by God. The participle here is used as verbal adjective and has become a title for her. The action of being graced was not something that was about to happen to her but something that has already been accomplished. The word was also used as a title. The angel did not say, “Hail Mary, you are kecharitomene” but rather, “Hail kecharitomene.” Therefore the word is not simply an action but an identity. In Hebrew culture, names and name changes tell us something permanent about the character and calling of the one named. Just recall the name changes of Abram to Abraham (from “father” to “father of the multitudes”) in Genesis 17:5, Saray to Sarah (“my princess” to “princess”) in Genesis 17:15, and Jacob to Israel (“supplanter” to “he who prevails with God”) in Genesis 32:28. In each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named. Abraham and Sarah transition from being a “father” and “princess” of one family to being “father” and “princess” or “mother” of the entire people of God (see Rom. 4:1-18; Isa. 51:1-2). They become patriarch and matriarch of God’s people forever. Jacob/Israel becomes the patriarch whose name, “he who prevails with God,” continues forever in the Church, which is called “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). The people of God will forever “prevail with God” in the image of the patriarch Jacob. As to how we know Mary didn't sin later in life, it entails a conversation of Mary being the New Ark of the Covenenant which I can discuss how we know this to be the case but I don't want to make this comment even longer than it is already. To say the sinlessness of Mary is a "slap in Jesus' face" is just ridiculous! Sinlessness does not imply divinity, as Adam and Eve were sinless and yet not divine. Your claim that the foundational belief for Mary's sinlessness is her not having sex before marriage is just disrespectful to the beliefs you don't hold. Why on EARTH would 1500 years of church beliefs be founded because someone doesn't sin once? Do you hear how ludicrous you sound? Your logic is just not sound and it honestly confusing to follow...Mary couldn't of been sinless because that means she would have to die on the cross, and the Catholic response to that is that Mary couldn't die on the cross because she's just a human and that apparently proves she's not sinless? This shows you don't understand HOW Mary was saved from sin, which you said you already don't!. If you understand that, then you'll understand why she couldn't of died on the cross. Mary is not sinless from her own doing, but instead is sinless as her salvation from Christ. Mary was saved in a different way than we are and still requires a Saviour. Christ’s death on the cross was an eternal event; as such, its graces could reach back in time, as well as forward. This means that the grace that Christ would win on Calvary could be applied to Mary in anticipation of Calvary. This was how she was saved from any stain of sin, both original and actual. Medieval theologians created the analogy of two people approaching a pit. If the first falls in and is rescued from the pit, and the second is prevented from falling into the pit, both are saved, and it even could be said that the one whose fall was prevented is saved far more completely than the one who was raised from the pit. I think your confused as you conflate the sinlessness of Mary as her being divine or a sign that she is also divine. You see her sinlessness in the Catholic faith as her being supplemented into the parts only reserved for God. Catholics are not saying Mary did the same as Christ and we would never claim that. Mary could not die for us, Mary is not God, Mary is not our Saviour, Mary cannot preform miracles through herself. Her sinlessness does not take away from the sacrifices Christ made for us. I guess I'm just struggling to understand because based on Catholic theology, how do you think Catholics believe Mary is saved? Genuinely who do you believe made Mary sinless? You approach the topic as if Catholics believe Mary has any authority over her sinlessness and not as it is something God bestowed on her. You confuse what Saviour means and also disagree that there are multiple ways to be saved, which is strange. When Mary says: “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior (Luke 1:47)". It shows the different ways God can save someone. Salvation from the eternal consequences of sin only comes into focus with the ministry of Jesus. Prior to this, the Bible is overwhelmingly concerned with salvation from temporal calamities (war, disease, famine, death, and so on). We may refer to this as temporal salvation. This seems to be what Mary has in mind. She says she rejoices in God her Savior, “for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden-for behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me.” God has thus saved her from a low estate and given her an exalted one to be remembered and honored forever. This is reinforced as Mary then lists multiple kinds of temporal salvation (“He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away. He has helped his servant Israel” Luke 1:51-54). It is also suggested by the parallel canticle in which Zechariah proclaims the praise of God as temporal Savior (Luke 1:68-75). There is also a sense in which God saves Mary from sin: He saved her from ever contracting it. Theologians sometimes compare the way God rescued Mary from sin to stopping a person from falling into a pit as opposed to pulling him out of a pit. Both can be described as saving a person from a pit, but which would you prefer? Being saved from ever committing sin is a more excellent form of salvation than rescuing a person from sin after falling into it. Thus Mary was redeemed, in view of what Christ would do on the cross, in a way that prevented her from falling into sin. Your claims of believing Mary to be sinless leading to idolatry is very random and not founded in anything. Praying simply means to ask. When we pray to Mary we ask her to ask our Lord on our behalf like we would a friend. We know God hears the prayers of the righteous more strongly (James 5:16, 1 Peter 3:12) and who is more righteous than those in heaven who we KNOW are sinless? We know people in heaven are aware of our prayers (Rev. 6:9-11, 7:13-14, 11:15-18, 16:5-6, 18:20), so why would it be wrong to ask those closest to God for help? I could go so much more in depth here but I'm tired so I'll give you some links! www.catholic.com/tract/praying-to-the-saints www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/can-the-saints-hear-us I agree that Jesus is our only salvation, but it is also important to not diminish the people God puts into our lives to get us there. I've been a Protestant and I've been a Catholic. I will say I was brought back to Catholicism THROUGH Mary, I was brought back to Christ THROUGH Mary and that shouldn't be understated. I know Christ is my Saviour and I worship him everyday for that but also do not diminish who and how Christ decided to work to get to you, whether it be through social media, Mary, friends, etc. I can place any links to my information if your curious how I reached this conclusion. Have a blessed day!
Im so glad they’re other apostolic Christians in the comments actually making amazing points! Im not Roman catholic but I am an eastern orthodox catechumen! God bless you amen
Aaahhh yes, Protestant theology (which came 16 centuries after christ). The problem is that you trust the church enough to compile ur bible but not to interpret it. Sola scriptura and nestorianism final boss
The clap part ate😭😭
THANK YOUUU 😂❤
“Died on the sins”😂😂😂
yeah i would agree with this but i dont jst believe in scripture alone. the apostles evangelized all over the world and had councils. keep in mind they had first hand experience with mary. they had established this. you can also look at the assumption😭.
only perfect people can ascend into heaven so therefore we believe Mary was perfect
This is going to be a long comment because it deals with some very serious accusations, but I encourage you to read it all to maybe better understand the Catholic perspective, even if you still don't agree. It could help strengthen your faith or bring you to a new truth. Remember Proverbs 12:15 and Proverbs 18:13? These verses really helped me become more open-minded!
This is with all kindness, but this video isn't well-researched. It's just small things such as using chatgpt as a definition source, even though it is already known to be biased, make up information and not be trustworthy and not stating Eastern orthodoxy in this video even though they also believe in the sinlessness of Mary. Yet it s not mentioned anywhere in this video, nor the 1500-year-old belief in her sinlessness. If the people closest to Christ believe something, shouldn't we? I think you should research church history because it is extremely important when understanding our beliefs as Christanity is a belief system revealed thousands of years ago with intellectually rich minds coming together to give us answers, these shouldn't be forgotten in our own personal pursuit for the truth. I also want to mention that we do not need to derive everything from the bible as the bible wasn't even compiled until the 4th century. While none of our beliefs can contradict the divine word, we are told the importance of tradition in 2 Thess. 2:15 and 2 Tim 2:2, so we have to be careful, and when in doubt, we should refer to tradition to see what our past brothers and sisters did.
Firstly, when we discuss scripture, it's essential to understand the context of all the words we speak. If we look at verses in isolation its easy to reach conclusions that are not true. For Romans 3:23, it is essential to note that Paul is arguing that both Jews and Gentiles need salvation through Jesus Christ and that this is not achieved through the Law of Moses. So when we look at Romans 3:22-24, we get a clearer picture. Rom 3:22-24, 29-3: "For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. . . . Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is on, and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith”. Here we see that when Paul says that, “there is no distinction,” he means that there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. When he explains this statement by saying “for all have sinned” he means sin characterizes both Jews and Gentiles.
But, we have to recognize that his use of the term "all” is hyperbole because Paul does not believe this is an exceptionless norm. Later in Romans, where Paul appeals to the case of Jacob and Esau and speaks of the time when “they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11). Paul therefore, recognizes that the unborn children have not yet committed personal sin, making them an exception to the “all have sinned” norm he spoke of earlier. Paul also makes the exception for Jesus when he acknowledges the sinlessness in his adult life. Paul says that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21), and belief in Jesus' sinlessness is attested in multiple passages in the New Testament (Heb. 4:15, 7:26, 9:14; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5).
From this single verse alone, we see that it refers to personal sin and not original sin and that there are 2 exceptions: babies and Jesus Christ. If Jesus, as the “Second Adam” (Rom. 5:12-19, 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45-49), is an exception to what Paul says in Romans 3:23, there may also be an exception for Mary as the “Second Eve.”
Even thought you already discussed why Rom 3:23 doesn't say except for Jesus because His sinlessness was already a known, common and accepted fact at the time, why can you not hold this same standard for Mary? Mary's sinlessness was widely believed in the early church and common knowledge between all her followers.
Here are some examples of church fathers living in the time of Paul and close to his time agreeing in the sinlessness of Mary: “[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’” (Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]). Another church father: “So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . ” (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]). The claims of Mary not receiving birth pains refers to Genesis 3:16 where God says childbirth is painful because of sin, her lack of these pains indicates her sinlessness. Another church father: “[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]). And even more than these!
You state your not sure how Mary didn't receive original sin from her mother but you also make no attempts to learn how! Even if you learn how and you still don't believe that's whatever but to deny yourself the chance at a possible truth even if it disagrees with your current truth is doing a disservice to yourself. The main problem I have with this video is your lack to truly understand the Catholic perspective. Our beliefs are our beliefs for a reason and we make sure they make sense, they are too complex to be refuted in a 9 minute video, spending only 2 MINUTES on Rom 3:23, these aren't trivial matters to play around with. Our priests go to school for years to understand, this aren't simple topics to put our mouths on and we should be aware of that.
And I agree with you! Mary did not need to be sinless in order to for Jesus to be sinless however, Mary’s sinlessness derives from the fact that she is the human vessel through which God himself became man. It was from her flesh that Christ received his human nature. Of course God did not need to do this, the same way Jesus did not need to be born from a virgin, but God chose this method and that should be respected. The fact that Mary was a virgin and conceived Christ isn’t so much a statement about Mary as it is about the dignity of the child she carried in her womb. Likewise (and ultimately) the Immaculate Conception isn’t so much a statement about the dignity of Mary as it is a statement about the dignity of her son. It points out who he is-God incarnate.
Go to my second comment to read the rest as I'm going over the character limit lol!
Part 2:
I think the problem with your interpretation is that you view it from an English perspective. Language influences the way we think and nothing can ever be fully translated without loosing some of its initla meaning. The bible wasn't written in English, it was written in koine greek. Lets view what the original version had to say. Luke 1:28 says “και εισελθών ο άγγελος προς αυτήν είπε: χαίρε κεχαριτωμένη, ο Κύριος μετά σου, ευλογημένη συ εν γυναιξί. That literally translated into : and the angel came in unto her and said; Hail, you who are full of grace/highly favoured, the Lord is with you; blessed you are among women. The meaning of this verse comes down to the translation of kecharitomene. The angel uses the word kecharitoménê. Kecharitoménê is the perfect passive participle of the passive voice of the verb “χαριτόω” charitóō, meaning : I fill someone with grace, I favour someone. The passive voice is “charitóomai” meaning: I'm granted grace and favour, I'm favoured. Kecharitoménê, therefore, means that she was filled with grace, she was favoured by God, sometime in the past and continues being graced, favoured by God. The participle here is used as verbal adjective and has become a title for her. The action of being graced was not something that was about to happen to her but something that has already been accomplished. The word was also used as a title. The angel did not say, “Hail Mary, you are kecharitomene” but rather, “Hail kecharitomene.” Therefore the word is not simply an action but an identity. In Hebrew culture, names and name changes tell us something permanent about the character and calling of the one named. Just recall the name changes of Abram to Abraham (from “father” to “father of the multitudes”) in Genesis 17:5, Saray to Sarah (“my princess” to “princess”) in Genesis 17:15, and Jacob to Israel (“supplanter” to “he who prevails with God”) in Genesis 32:28. In each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named. Abraham and Sarah transition from being a “father” and “princess” of one family to being “father” and “princess” or “mother” of the entire people of God (see Rom. 4:1-18; Isa. 51:1-2). They become patriarch and matriarch of God’s people forever. Jacob/Israel becomes the patriarch whose name, “he who prevails with God,” continues forever in the Church, which is called “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). The people of God will forever “prevail with God” in the image of the patriarch Jacob.
As to how we know Mary didn't sin later in life, it entails a conversation of Mary being the New Ark of the Covenenant which I can discuss how we know this to be the case but I don't want to make this comment even longer than it is already.
To say the sinlessness of Mary is a "slap in Jesus' face" is just ridiculous! Sinlessness does not imply divinity, as Adam and Eve were sinless and yet not divine. Your claim that the foundational belief for Mary's sinlessness is her not having sex before marriage is just disrespectful to the beliefs you don't hold. Why on EARTH would 1500 years of church beliefs be founded because someone doesn't sin once? Do you hear how ludicrous you sound?
Your logic is just not sound and it honestly confusing to follow...Mary couldn't of been sinless because that means she would have to die on the cross, and the Catholic response to that is that Mary couldn't die on the cross because she's just a human and that apparently proves she's not sinless? This shows you don't understand HOW Mary was saved from sin, which you said you already don't!. If you understand that, then you'll understand why she couldn't of died on the cross. Mary is not sinless from her own doing, but instead is sinless as her salvation from Christ. Mary was saved in a different way than we are and still requires a Saviour. Christ’s death on the cross was an eternal event; as such, its graces could reach back in time, as well as forward. This means that the grace that Christ would win on Calvary could be applied to Mary in anticipation of Calvary. This was how she was saved from any stain of sin, both original and actual. Medieval theologians created the analogy of two people approaching a pit. If the first falls in and is rescued from the pit, and the second is prevented from falling into the pit, both are saved, and it even could be said that the one whose fall was prevented is saved far more completely than the one who was raised from the pit.
I think your confused as you conflate the sinlessness of Mary as her being divine or a sign that she is also divine. You see her sinlessness in the Catholic faith as her being supplemented into the parts only reserved for God. Catholics are not saying Mary did the same as Christ and we would never claim that. Mary could not die for us, Mary is not God, Mary is not our Saviour, Mary cannot preform miracles through herself. Her sinlessness does not take away from the sacrifices Christ made for us. I guess I'm just struggling to understand because based on Catholic theology, how do you think Catholics believe Mary is saved? Genuinely who do you believe made Mary sinless? You approach the topic as if Catholics believe Mary has any authority over her sinlessness and not as it is something God bestowed on her. You confuse what Saviour means and also disagree that there are multiple ways to be saved, which is strange.
When Mary says: “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior (Luke 1:47)". It shows the different ways God can save someone. Salvation from the eternal consequences of sin only comes into focus with the ministry of Jesus. Prior to this, the Bible is overwhelmingly concerned with salvation from temporal calamities (war, disease, famine, death, and so on). We may refer to this as temporal salvation. This seems to be what Mary has in mind. She says she rejoices in God her Savior, “for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden-for behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me.” God has thus saved her from a low estate and given her an exalted one to be remembered and honored forever. This is reinforced as Mary then lists multiple kinds of temporal salvation (“He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away. He has helped his servant Israel” Luke 1:51-54). It is also suggested by the parallel canticle in which Zechariah proclaims the praise of God as temporal Savior (Luke 1:68-75). There is also a sense in which God saves Mary from sin: He saved her from ever contracting it. Theologians sometimes compare the way God rescued Mary from sin to stopping a person from falling into a pit as opposed to pulling him out of a pit. Both can be described as saving a person from a pit, but which would you prefer? Being saved from ever committing sin is a more excellent form of salvation than rescuing a person from sin after falling into it. Thus Mary was redeemed, in view of what Christ would do on the cross, in a way that prevented her from falling into sin.
Your claims of believing Mary to be sinless leading to idolatry is very random and not founded in anything. Praying simply means to ask. When we pray to Mary we ask her to ask our Lord on our behalf like we would a friend. We know God hears the prayers of the righteous more strongly (James 5:16, 1 Peter 3:12) and who is more righteous than those in heaven who we KNOW are sinless? We know people in heaven are aware of our prayers (Rev. 6:9-11, 7:13-14, 11:15-18, 16:5-6, 18:20), so why would it be wrong to ask those closest to God for help? I could go so much more in depth here but I'm tired so I'll give you some links!
www.catholic.com/tract/praying-to-the-saints
www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/can-the-saints-hear-us
I agree that Jesus is our only salvation, but it is also important to not diminish the people God puts into our lives to get us there. I've been a Protestant and I've been a Catholic. I will say I was brought back to Catholicism THROUGH Mary, I was brought back to Christ THROUGH Mary and that shouldn't be understated. I know Christ is my Saviour and I worship him everyday for that but also do not diminish who and how Christ decided to work to get to you, whether it be through social media, Mary, friends, etc.
I can place any links to my information if your curious how I reached this conclusion. Have a blessed day!
Im so glad they’re other apostolic Christians in the comments actually making amazing points! Im not Roman catholic but I am an eastern orthodox catechumen! God bless you amen
@naverill07 us Catholics and Othodox got to stick together lol!
Aaahhh yes, Protestant theology (which came 16 centuries after christ). The problem is that you trust the church enough to compile ur bible but not to interpret it. Sola scriptura and nestorianism final boss
CLOCK TEA
YEAH😛