Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[notuptome]

Re: Catholic heresy (for the record)

Roger, you couldn't refute my explanation of Tradition so you jump topic to Atonement, then spew the same anti-Catholic misunderstanding of the relationship between scripture and tradition. Catholics don't define scripture with tradition.

Really? Where tradition and scripture conflict you always prefer tradition. Only the scriptures are given by inspiration of God. Traditions of men are just that of men an not of God.

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.. source
I went into detail on the biblical use of "entrusted" in a post explaining Apostolic Succession, you should scroll back and read it. The apostles were not "entrusted" with the New Testament.

This means less than nothing to non Catholics. Apostolic succession is corrupted by the vested interests of Rome.

Whether Mary died a physical death or she was raptured when alive; Catholics are not bound to either view, so you should find out what Catholics really believe instead of forming opinions based on ignorance and prejudice. Anti-Catholic sources, and there are legions of them, are 99% lies.

Ok so because you accept it that makes it valid.

Another anti-Catholic lie. How would you like it if I made up lies about what you believe?

If you wish to lie about he bible then you will need to be concerned not about me but the Author of the bible.

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:

"Highly favoured" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow'" (Plummer).

(Robertson, II, 13)Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, "grace"). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated "grace" 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as "full of grace" and that the literal meaning was "endued with grace" (Vincent, I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as "to endue with Divine favour or grace" (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to "divine favor, that is, God’s grace" (White, 201).​

These men are entitled to their opinions but their opinions are not inspired like scripture.

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary's personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

Pure rubbish. Not Mary but the Catholic dogma about her.

The Catholic argument hinges upon the meaning of kecharitomene. For Mary this signifies a state granted to her, in which she enjoys an extraordinary fullness of grace. Charis often refers to a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel points out:

Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . .

(Kittel, 1304-1305)
Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean "a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18" (Vine, II, 170). One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary's sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and "conqueror" of sin (emphases added in the following verses):

Romans 6:14: "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)

We are saved by grace, and grace alone:

Ephesians 2:8-10: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)
​

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:​

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.​

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It's a "zero-sum game": the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7,9; 3:6,9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:​

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.

2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.​

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:
1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace.

2. To be "full of" God's grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God's grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be "full of" God's grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.

In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.

One possible quibble might be about when God applied this grace to Mary. We know (from Luke 1:28) that she had it as a young woman, at the Annunciation. Catholics believe that God gave her the grace at her conception so that she might avoid the original sin that she otherwise would have inherited, being human. Therefore, by God's preventive grace, she was saved from falling into the pit of sin, rather than rescued after she had fallen in.

All of this follows straightforwardly from Luke 1:28 and the (primarily Pauline) exegesis of charis elsewhere in the New Testament. It would be strange for a Protestant to underplay grace, when they are known for their constant emphasis on grace alone for salvation. (We Catholics fully agree with that; we merely deny the tenet of "faith alone," as contrary to the clear teaching of St. James and St. Paul.)

Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

What we have, then, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions (yet another instance of my general theme). source​

Were Adam and Eve always sinners? I guess it's impossible for God to endow anyone sinless from conception, right Roger?

You pontificate but you do not believe. Adam and Eve were not born of man but were created beings. Mary and everybody except Jesus were born of man and born with a sin nature. God does not operate outside of His word. Though heaven and earth should pass away not one jot or tittle will pass from Gods word.

Why are you adverse to the atonement?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

Re: Catholic heresy (for the record)

But she did birth the person Christ Jesus, who is God.

She didn't conceive his spirit, any more than any other mother conceives the spirit of her child.
But a mother births her child, who is both body and spirit.

God is Spirit not flesh and blood. Mary gave birth to Jesus Who is the Christ. Mary was a chosen vessel for Gods purpose. Adam looked at Eve and said she is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone.

An interesting paradox. God taking the form of a man.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

Re: Catholic heresy (for the record)

Roger, quit condemning people to hell. That's all you do here. Regurgitate the same crap and tell people they're going to hell. It's so lame. You must be miserable.

Who are you to judge anyone, man?? To damn others because they don't agree with you? We are all wholly dependent upon God's mercy.

Take a break brother.

May God bless you and keep you.

I just asked you a question you did the condemning.

There is no greater matter than your eternal destination. If you are counting on anything but the grace of God you are in the worst possible condition.

Come down off your high horse and hear the true gospel message that you must be born again.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Jackson123]

I believe catholic is heresy, his faith base on lie, Pope is not successor of Peter, Paul not Peter is the first bishop of Rome.

 

[kepha]

Re: Catholic heresy (for the record)

Really? Where tradition and scripture conflict you always prefer tradition. Only the scriptures are given by inspiration of God. Traditions of men are just that of men an not of God.

Scripture HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF DOCTRINE. It's not that I prefer tradition, it's that I am trying to explain what it is in this thread, but you keep making things up.

This means less than nothing to non Catholics. Apostolic succession is corrupted by the vested interests of Rome.
Ok so because you accept it that makes it valid.If you wish to lie about he bible then you will need to be concerned not about me but the Author of the bible.

Apostolic succession is corrupted by the vested interests of Rome. This is hate speech, a rule #2 violation. If you care to produce primary or secondary documentation, I would be glad to examine it. Sources like Jackkk Chickkk doesn't count. . Maybe we should open a thread and call it "Christian Chat heresy" (for the record). I already gave scriptures outlining 3 generations of apostles (and arguable 4) but you would...again...ignore them and regurgitate more anti-Catholic garbage you have been feeding on.

These men are entitled to their opinions but their opinions are not inspired like scripture.
Pure rubbish. Not Mary but the Catholic dogma about her.

This is blindness. The Authority of Scripture is a Tradition, which proves your rigid ignorance.

You pontificate but you do not believe. Adam and Eve were not born of man but were created beings. Mary and everybody except Jesus were born of man and born with a sin nature. God does not operate outside of His word. Though heaven and earth should pass away not one jot or tittle will pass from Gods word.

God created Adam and Eve sinless, Jesus was sinless, but you refuse to believe God has the power to make an exception in Mary's case. fine, but like I have said three times and explained in detail, the sinlessness of Mary flows out of YOUR premise of grace, which, logically, you must deny. You just don't like my explanation and hurl zingers instead.

Why are you adverse to the atonement?

I am not adverse to the Atonement, I am adverse to your escape tactics because your anti-Catholic myths have (in part) been refuted. That's why you must change the subject.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You flatter yourself. The only cause I see are the causes of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli and thousands of combinations therein. Just where do you fit in this chaos? Yet you keep harping this nonsense about Catholicism and "traditions of men" all the while ignoring the scriptures you claim to uphold.

 

[ThomistColin]

The funny thing is: Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all believed in Mary's sinless life and perpetual virginity. Heck, Luther and Calvin both ascribed to the belief that Mary was a three-fold virgin. They both agree and ascribed to her "Theotokos", Mother of God. Luther called her "the Mother of the Church and Mother of us all," in his "Little Prayer Book."

 

[santuzza]

The problem with the "reformers" is that they tried to reform a corrupt church instead of going back to basics and throwing out ALL the heresies and starting again from scratch.

 

[kepha]

The funny thing is: Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all believed in Mary's sinless life and perpetual virginity. Heck, Luther and Calvin both ascribed to the belief that Mary was a three-fold virgin. They both agree and ascribed to her "Theotokos", Mother of God. Luther called her "the Mother of the Church and Mother of us all," in his "Little Prayer Book."

Thank you, Thomist, for the breath of fresh air. Objectors to Mary's sinlessness are following "traditions of men" invented long after the so called reformation, so who is following false traditions?

 

[santuzza]

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Paul didn't exclude Mary in that statement, and since she is NOT God, she is part of the "all." Mary sinned.

 

[kepha]

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Paul didn't exclude Mary in that statement, and since she is NOT God, she is part of the "all." Mary sinned.

"all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

"all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

"all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes."

1 Cor. 15:22 - in Adam all ("pantes") have died, and in Christ all ("pantes") shall live. This proves that "all" does not mean "every single one." This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).
Rom. 5:12 - Paul says that death spread to all ("pantes") men. Again, this proves that "all" does not mean "every single one" because death did not spread to all men (as we have seen with Enoch and Elijah).

Rom. 5:19 - here Paul says "many (not all) were made sinners." Paul uses "polloi," not "pantes." Is Paul contradicting what he said in Rom. 3:23? Of course not. Paul means that all are subject to original sin, but not all reject God.

Rom. 3:10-11 - you can try to use this verse to prove that all human beings are sinful and thus Mary must be sinful. But see Psalm 14 which is the basis of the verse. Paul begins verse 10 with "As it is written..." in reference to Psalm 14.

[SUP]1 [/SUP]Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is no one who does good.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind
to see if there are any who are wise,
who seek after God.

[SUP]3 [/SUP]They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse;
there is no one who does good,
no, not one.​

Psalm 14, referenced by Paul in Rom. 3:10-11 refers to the wicked, not to the whole human race. (a Calvinist error). If one applies this to Mary then it's the same as saying Mary is wicked and says there is no God. Christian Chat heresy #2! (for the record) Christian chat heresy #1 (for the record) is following anti-reformist inventions and biblical contortions.

Did God HAVE TO make Mary sinless at her conception to be a perfect and holy vessel to send His Son into the world? No, but He chose to.

 

[GaryA]

The funny thing is: Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all believed in Mary's sinless life and perpetual virginity. Heck, Luther and Calvin both ascribed to the belief that Mary was a three-fold virgin. They both agree and ascribed to her "Theotokos", Mother of God. Luther called her "the Mother of the Church and Mother of us all," in his "Little Prayer Book."

The problem with the "reformers" is that they tried to reform a corrupt church instead of going back to basics and throwing out ALL the heresies and starting again from scratch.

Exactly!

The "reformers" ( who were protestants - who were "protesting" Catholicism ) were once part of Catholicism, and "came out" from it - or, "split off" of it - to start their own version of a church which was still part Catholicism - thereby continuing error at least in part. All of the protestants came out of Catholicism. That is why they are called protestants - because, they "protested" Catholicism. But, they also "carried with them" parts of Catholicism ( because that is what they knew ) - a lot of which was / is in error, biblically.

What many people don't realize or understand is that - since well before Catholicism ever existed, there have always been ( since the personal ministry of Christ ) Christians who were never protestants - even to this day. These [ true, original ] Christians were the ones that the "Holy Roman Empire" ( the original name of the modern "Roman Catholic Church" ) persecuted for centuries -- because they would not "join" Catholicism, and thus were considered enemies of the Catholic Church.

I used the words 'true' and 'original' in the statement above to indicate that those Christians who were persecuted by the Catholic Church were in fact the true original Christians from the Church that Christ Himself started. Believe it or not -- Catholicism was / is not that true, original Church. Rather, it was / is actually the "mortal enemy" of that true, original church. And, [ true ] history shows very clearly that this is the case. Only, [ the hierarchy / upper-echelon of ] the Catholic Church would like for you to believe differently.

This is not "hate speech" --- it is "the God's honest truth" -- the ugly truth that Satan does not want Catholic people to understand.

The 'dark ages' was not about the [ true, original ] Christian Church "behaving badly" ( as most societies in the world have been led to believe today ) --- it was about the [ true, original ] Christian Church being severely persecuted by a man-established entity which - from a world society view of history - managed to 'usurp' - in 'identification' terms - the position / standing / etc. - as being the Church that Christ started ( which is false ).

The Catholic people are being lied to by the Catholic hierarchy. The true nature of the history of the Catholic Church is everything but Christian.

And that is the reason for this thread...

 

[GaryA]

"all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin.

No.


Romans 3:

[SUP]23[/SUP] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;


"all have sinned" means "all have sinned"...

All have sinned.
All have come short of the glory of God.

It means what it says.

Only Jesus is excepted, by virtue of context.

 

[GaryA]

Thank you, Thomist, for the breath of fresh air. Objectors to Mary's sinlessness are following "traditions of men" invented long after the so called reformation, so who is following false traditions?

The Catholic Church [ hierarchy ] is the author and originator of "traditions of men" - placing tradition above scripture...

 

[notuptome]

Re: Catholic heresy (for the record)

Scripture HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF DOCTRINE. It's not that I prefer tradition, it's that I am trying to explain what it is in this thread, but you keep making things up.

Scripture is the only divinely inspired source of doctrine. 2 Tim 3:16

Apostolic succession is corrupted by the vested interests of Rome. This is hate speech, a rule #2 violation. If you care to produce primary or secondary documentation, I would be glad to examine it. Sources like Jackkk Chickkk doesn't count. . Maybe we should open a thread and call it "Christian Chat heresy" (for the record). I already gave scriptures outlining 3 generations of apostles (and arguable 4) but you would...again...ignore them and regurgitate more anti-Catholic garbage you have been feeding on.

It's not hate speech when it's true. There is no biblical basis for apostolic succession.

This is blindness. The Authority of Scripture is a Tradition, which proves your rigid ignorance.

God is the authority for scripture.

God created Adam and Eve sinless, Jesus was sinless, but you refuse to believe God has the power to make an exception in Mary's case. fine, but like I have said three times and explained in detail, the sinlessness of Mary flows out of YOUR premise of grace, which, logically, you must deny. You just don't like my explanation and hurl zingers instead.

God does not make mistakes and He does not go about making exceptions because He didn't get it right the first time.

I am not adverse to the Atonement, I am adverse to your escape tactics because your anti-Catholic myths have (in part) been refuted. That's why you must change the subject.

You may be attempting to escape I'm attempting to create common ground. The natural man meaning the unregenerate man cannot receive the Spiritual things for they are foolishness to his according to scripture.

You flatter yourself. The only cause I see are the causes of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli and thousands of combinations therein. Just where do you fit in this chaos? Yet you keep harping this nonsense about Catholicism and "traditions of men" all the while ignoring the scriptures you claim to uphold.

Show me your scriptures. God did not make Mary sinless, God saved Mary while she was in her sin just like He does for any man who receives Christ, even Catholics. We just won't tell the pope.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

The funny thing is: Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all believed in Mary's sinless life and perpetual virginity. Heck, Luther and Calvin both ascribed to the belief that Mary was a three-fold virgin. They both agree and ascribed to her "Theotokos", Mother of God. Luther called her "the Mother of the Church and Mother of us all," in his "Little Prayer Book."

No one ever said these men were perfect. I imagine they were under great pressure from Rome so they conceded some error as to survive and not be burned at the stake. In any case there is no biblical basis for those contentions regarding Mary.

Please provide biblical evidence. Believing an error has no virtue no matter how ardent the belief.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[ThomistColin]

No one ever said these men were perfect. I imagine they were under great pressure from Rome so they conceded some error as to survive and not be burned at the stake. In any case there is no biblical basis for those contentions regarding Mary.

Please provide biblical evidence. Believing an error has no virtue no matter how ardent the belief.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Roger, that was the most arrogant and ignorant statement I've ever read. John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Zwingli just after having protested the Church, founded the "Protestant Reformation", spit in the eyes of many Catholics, suddenly sit there and say, "Well, we don't want to make the Church angry or anything."

Also, we've given you the Biblical evidence, "Hail, full of grace." But you ignored that.

Brothers and sisters, we have talked long enough, when shall we :dust off our sandals"?

 

[JesusIsAll]

Please provide biblical evidence. Believing an error has no virtue no matter how ardent the belief.

Don't hold your breath. It's funny. Catholic apologists claim there's not idolatry over Mariolatry, then, next thing you see, they're parading a statue of Mary down Main Street. Just remember: there's always an answer, when all you need is a Pope to invent new theology, just like that vast category of allegorizing all things to fit those square pegs into round holes.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[notuptome]

Roger, that was the most arrogant and ignorant statement I've ever read. John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Zwingli just after having protested the Church, founded the "Protestant Reformation", spit in the eyes of many Catholics, suddenly sit there and say, "Well, we don't want to make the Church angry or anything."

Also, we've given you the Biblical evidence, "Hail, full of grace." But you ignored that.

Brothers and sisters, we have talked long enough, when shall we :dust off our sandals"?

Is this the holier than thou treatment?

Show from the bible that Mary was sinless or admit that she was just like everybody else born of man and born with a nature to sin. Hail full of grace does not mean sinless. Save in the Catholic lexicon. Jesus was not born of man but born of God so Jesus came into the world without sin and remained without sin so He could be the perfect sacrifice for everybody else in the world who was a sinner both by nature and by choice.

By the way protestants protest more than just rome. They protest all that is unbiblical.

Does Rome teach that a person is saved by their baptism, confirmation, communion and confession? There are seven sacraments in the Catholic church correct? Since priests do not marry they cannot receive the sacrament of marriage. You want to say you are saved by grace but aren't you really saying you are saved by the sacraments of the Catholic church?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[santuzza]

"all have sinned " only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary's case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Where is your biblical reference to this? What IS original sin? Where is that in the Bible?

"all have sinned" also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Who said these folks don't sin? Ask any parent, and they will tell you their infants definitely sin! They simply cannot cognate it as sin.

"all have sinned," but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is "pantes."

I can't believe you even said this. Of course Jesus is the exception! That's the ONLY REASON His death can be recompense for our sins! AND Jesus is GOD. Mary is NOT God, and therefore can sin. Only God cannot sin.

 

[ThomistColin]

[/COLOR]
Who said these folks don't sin? Ask any parent, and they will tell you their infants definitely sin! They simply cannot cognate it as sin.


I can't believe you even said this. Of course Jesus is the exception! That's the ONLY REASON His death can be recompense for our sins! AND Jesus is GOD. Mary is NOT God, and therefore can sin. Only God cannot sin.

The ability to sin, does not mean one will, first off. Secondly, the fact they cannot cognate sin is what protects them from mortal sin.