Show me how to refute this anti-Catholic web page


#1

speaking of anti-Catholic attacks. i ran across this article.

biblelight.net/antichrist_and_jesus.htm

could some of my fellow Catholics point out some of the falsehoods near the bottom of this article?


#2

Split off from another thread where it was off topic.
MF


#3

Universal qualifier error. Often there are some special cases which are not mentioned when someone uses the word “all”.

For instance, “all numbers except prime number can be expressed as a series of prime factors”.
True, except that the speaker has forgotten to exclude unity. But probably in context this doesn’t matter.

Only British subjects can hold high ranks in the armed forces.
True, except that the Queen is Commander in Chief, and not a subject.

The answer to the specific query about Mary’s sinlessness is that the sin of Adam was more serious than the sin of Eve, because being a male he had a stronger will and more insight into what he was doing. Milton expresses this by having Eve deceived by the serpent into thinking that she will become God-like, whilst Adam eats of the fruit knowing that it will kill him, to avoid being different to Eve.

Thus the second Eve can be created more easily than the second Adam.


#4

The Church Fathers recognized wisely that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a Christological dogma. Mary’s sinlessness is because of Christ’s full humanity.

Christ is fully human, this includes everything about being human such as being born of a woman, having a mother. (Note, sin is not part of being human but is actually a defect in one’s humanity).

Christ got from his Mother everything that we get from our mothers. He took his human nature from her, including body and soul.

However, Christ could not have sin. He could not even have original sin or any other imperfection both because he is God and because this would be a defect in his humanity.

So, for Christ to be fully human, having both a true mother and also being without any sin or imperfection, his Mother had to be sinless as well.

For more, including some quotes from the Fathers, see: catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp


#5

Mary had a redeemer… “My soul rejoices in God my savior” - why would catholics pray the magnificat if we didn’t believe it to be true?

I’ve visited this site before. It is cleaver nonsense. Is there any particular reason you want to respond to it?

Sometimes it’s difficult to respond to things that are so utterly wrong. Consider classical skepticism: we can know nothing. (Oh really? Do you know that to be true?) Or Nietzsche’s question “Why truth rather than the lie?” These are shocking questiones to hear at first and can be difficult to respond to.

Aristotle responded to the first one by basically telling the other person to shut up, because they are not speaking rationally. Once you utter a proposition such as “we can know nothing” we are making a judgment of knowledge about the truth, and thus we contradict the very statement we are making.

As for Nietzsche, you can tell them to shut up, that they’re no longer speaking rationally, or you can say “Ask yourself first why you want a true answer to that question rather than a false one.” Or just lie and say something like, “Because every time you lie God increases your chance of getting syphilis” (Nietzsche had syphilis.

My point in all this is that sometimes an appropriate defense is just to ignore the person.


#6

Do babies and young children have personal sin?

Was Adam and Eve created with sin?

If we agree that babies, young children, Adam and Eve were at some point free of personal sin, then the phrase “all have sinned” must mean something a bit different then “all.”

That alone is enough to collapse the case.


#7

That’s a great point and one I often use. The word “all” can be in the collective or distributive form; collective being everyone without exception, distributive can mean most but not all.
If my memory serves me correctly that’s the website that I emailed to ask them why they had on their front page, a crucifix and a picture of Jesus. I asked them wasn’t that a “graven image?” And a violation of having graven images other than God alone?
What was ironic was they emailed me back and thought I was just plain crazy for even thinking such nonesense. How ironic it is that we Catholics often get the same types of questions and knowing we don’t worship Mary, the Saints nor statues reply with the same answer as them!


#8

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.