All have sinned.. including Mary.

[peary]

Then why do some historians try to rewrite history books for the the classrom, omitting important facts or events? I say, history is in the eye of the writer.

Historians do not rewrite history books for the classroom…a board of editors does. Published historical book series used for the classroom are lucky to have an historian on the board. Usually, they have ‘(name removed by moderator)ut’ from various individuals from universities who get paid for their services. Classroom history books are quite bland, for the most part. Editorial boards make the decision on what to eliminate or omit in those books, whether or not the writer(s) included the material.

To agree with some your statement, some “true”, apparently meaning honest and objective, historians might give an unbiased and factual account, but certainly not all- therefore, in looking at Columbus, did he really “discover” America? It is that purported discovery that has led to a National holiday and belief system for millions of people… But, rhetorically speaking, (I don’t want to get into the nuance that he is the discoverer within his specific point in history or for the peoples he represents) is that statement a totally historically accurate one?

The proper point of the above is: did Columbus ‘discover’ the New World, not America per se? For all intents and purposes historically he was the first one to give us written documentation of the New World. Do you think we are the only ones who celebrate this event? Do you know that it is known as Dia de la Raza in many Latin American countries? In Costa Rica it is called Dia de las Culturas, *Discovery Day *in the Bahamas, *Dia de la Hispanidad *in Spain, *Discoverer’s Day *in Hawaii, and *Dia de la Resistencia Indigena *in Venezuela. They all celebrate the same event. The first Columbus Day celebration in America took place in New York City in 1792 to celebrate the 300th Anniversary of Columbus’s landing in the New World. It was celebrated by Italian immigrants in California as early as 1869. It was an unofficial holiday since 1892 in most Italian communities throughout the country (and gained popularity the next year particularly in Chicago because of the New World Exposition), but became official in 1971 when Congress placed it on the 2nd Monday of October.

I appreciate your defense of the credibility of historians, but you can’t tell me that within the imperfect inclination of human beings that historical writings are 100% factual and infallible.

If there was only one or two historians throughout most of written history interpreting the information, I would say that it would not be as accurate. However, you have literally thousands of historians who glean over records of events and cross-index their information so that we have a pretty good idea as to what occurred in certain historical periods. And that’s all that can be asked of anyone.

Certainly, that is why hundreds if not thousands of mythical and philosophical concepts and ideas were disregarded from history. The ancient Gnostics were famous for drastically distorting the Faith for their point of views, yet they would insist that their historical collection of beliefs was “true” and accurate.

But we know better.

I agree wholeheartedly. But mostly, because the Church recieves its authority directly from God.

Amen!

 

[peary]

Elvisman (and Peary by exstension),

I assumed your intent was to attempt to lay some trap with the infant baptism question.

Yet, there was nothing anti-Catholic in my reply.
You asked.
I answered.

The only thing about my answer that could be construed as anti-Catholic is merely that I disagree with a practice Catholics accept. Likewise I disagree with Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians regarding infant baptism.

I don’t appreciate being unjustly accused.

Furthermore, not being Catholic, and new to the forums, perhaps my arguments are not yet of sufficient worth to merit reply, but why is it the content of my replies have largely been skipped over? Yet believer’s replies have been meticulously dissected?

Peary by extension?
You flatter me!
Do you believe that infants can sin? Do you think they have sin? If not, when do you think sin enters? If you believe they cannot sin and have no sin at such a young age, then why reject the Immaculate Conception which states that Mary was free from the stain of original sin on her soul when she was conceived? If no infant has sin, then we have all been immaculately conceived by God. Can you explain your reasoning, please?

 

[GreenLantern]

You dont know the bible is 100% accurate ethier

And it isn’t just the Roman Catholic Church, but at this time the Church was the Catholic Church pre-schism, that inculdes the Eastern Churchs

Well let’s see some of the churches that didn’t weren’t included…

There’s the Arians and they denied Christ inherent divinity, there’s the Nesotorians who pretty much said Christ was two distinct persons in one body, the Gnostics who you would see as completely alien and bizarre…

Believer seems to be looking at history from the wrong perspective. The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is his “base” and he’s looking out to the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine of Sacred Tradition as if Sola Scriptura is the normal and orthodox one.

Let’s see what the Bible has to say about tradition
2 Thess. 2:15:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

So not only does the Bible never say to only use the Bible for faith, it tells you to use tradition! What kinds of traditions can we take from the Apostles? Well convening councils to settle theological issues is one (Acts 15).

So the Bible never makes a claim to be the only thing ever needed for theology. The Bible actually tells you to follow traditions like the Apostles.
The Apostles are shown to have settled a theological matter by convening a council.
Ergo we can believe that councils can be used to settle theological matters.

The Bible never makes a claim as to what it is made out of.
During the Early Church there was a sea of books claiming to be the word of God. Some were inspired, some were not inspired but still good and some were downright blasphemous to the truth. Ever heard of the Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Marcion or the Gospel of Mani?

What books should be included is a theological matter.
Thus councils were convened to settle this theological matter (just like what the Apostles did) such as the ones at Hippo, Carthage, Rome, Nicea, Florence and Trent.
That is how the the inspired books of the Bible came to settled upon

 

[HiggDo]

In the final analysis, only God and that which He ordains is infallible. Therefore, for mankind in their own efforts, including historians, the opposite is true- they can be fallible and sometimes are fallible… That was my initial point, which, you eluded to in part in your writings today.

I thank you for your sharing and I appreciate our discussion on the perfect intent and structural harmony amongst all historians.



May God bless you and keep you!

 

[justinthemartyr]

One comment…

Just because
(1) “All” is not consistently used in the sense of 100% in the Bible
(2) All in Romans 3:23 probably does not mean 100% of all non-deity humans who ever lived and/or are alive now on planet earth (unless you want to argue that aborted babies are in this all)

This still gives me absolutely no reason to believe that Mary is excluded from the “all” of Romans 3:23.

It is one thing to exclude from this scripture categories of humans that do not have the ability to sin (whatever these categories may be). It is another thing to exclude someone who obviously is not in any excluded category.

But you see, Mary is given the title “full of grace” in scripture,

of which Christ was also given, in scripture.

the entire first 1500 years of Christianity, including the reformers believed that Mary was without sin.

 

[mozart-250]

But you see, Mary is given the title “full of grace” in scripture,

of which Christ was also given, in scripture.

the entire first 1500 years of Christianity, including the reformers believed that Mary was without sin.

“Full of Grace” is not logically the same as “Conceived without Original Sin” and/or “Never Having Sinned in her entire lifetime”.

From what I have read in Catholic apologetics, this belief began to surface in the mid to late 300s. Any quote earlier than this point in time really is only saying that she was a very, holy, woman (which nobody should disagree with but is not the same as the immaculate conception). And of course this only became dogma…when…in the last 100 or 150 years or so.

I have not read any quotes by any reformers indicating that they believed that Mary never sinned in her entire lifetime or that she was conceived without original sin (I have read quotes that some of the reformers believed that she abstained from sexual relations her whole life which is another issue). Of course if they exist. I am not sure if that is sufficient evidence to believe that it is necessarily true, They might be sufficient evidence to indicate that I should not “have a cow” over this one, but I don’t have a cow over it anyway.

 

[elvisman]

Elvisman (and Peary by exstension),

I assumed your intent was to attempt to lay some trap with the infant baptism question.

Yet, there was nothing anti-Catholic in my reply.
You asked.
I answered.

The only thing about my answer that could be construed as anti-Catholic is merely that I disagree with a practice Catholics accept. Likewise I disagree with Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians regarding infant baptism.

I don’t appreciate being unjustly accused.

Furthermore, not being Catholic, and new to the forums, perhaps my arguments are not yet of sufficient worth to merit reply, but why is it the content of my replies have largely been skipped over? Yet believer’s replies have been meticulously dissected?

**Actually, I was responding to **Syele and Believers, whose belief that babies can sin borders on the insane.
THAT’s why the question of infant baptism was asked. I’m not accusing you of being anti-Catholic.

If you can honestly believe that a fetus can sin (a ridiculously unbiblical, unreasonable and irrational belief), how can you NOT believe in infant baptism?

THAT question remains to be answered.

---

 

[lagin]

As I stated… it’s not in the Bible.

You have interpreted “Full of Grace” (which my Bible says “highly favoured”) to mean free from sin. That definitely not in the Bible.

My Bible also says in Jhn 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Grace came by Jesus NOT Mary.

In the jargon of the day, “Full of Grace” or “highly favoured” meant that the soul of Mary was COMPLETELY filled with Grace - that participation in the Life of God Himself, that there was no room for sin to enter into her soul. Satan could try and tempt her as much as he liked - he would not be successful - EVER. Full means just that: full to the brim - no room left over for anything other than God.

I have come to the conclusion that we not only need to read Scripture, but we also must understand the terminology as it was used when that Scripture was written.

 

[Gara3987]

So you are saying God lied?

It’s like the pot calling the kettle black.

**
And you being outside the Catholic Church, Are you saying that God Lied?**

                “And I say to thee: That thou art                      Peter; and upon this rock                      I will build **my church**, and **the gates of                      hell** shall not prevail against it.” *Matthew* 16: 18 DRB]

“My church” that is one Church not the church Martin Luther, or Henry VIII, or Menno Simons, etc… founded but His Church, founded by God Himself through Saint Peter and the Apostles

“The gates of hell”… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

                 “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: **and behold I am with you all days,                      even to the consummation of the world.”** *Matthew* 28: 20 DRB]

    We must remember that Our Lord said, “I am the Truth.”   What is truth?   Truth omits          error, it is conformity to reality or actuality.   He founded his Church and said, “And if he          will not hear **the church**, let him be to thee as the heathen” *[Matthew 18: 17]*.  Again He told His Apostles, “he that despiseth you,          despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me” *[Luke 10: 16]* and,          “He that is not with me, is against me.”

** Those who break away from Rome contravene what our Lord has ensured us about his Church, that She will never fall.**

If you do not believe in the Catholic Church, Why are you even reading the New Testament? Saint Peter was our first Pope. The Apostles are/were the first Catholics. There are two main roots of tradition; Divine (from God) and Ecclesiastical (from the Apostles). Divine Traditions are never touch or altered, to do so would be heretical. With concerns to Our Blessed Mother; she falls into the Divine Tradition category.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [2Thess. 2:14 DRB]
“Traditions”… See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be received than their epistles.

In concerns with you belief:

The Vatican wants you to believe that sin is just a stain and that this stain can be washed away with water. That’s not what we read in the Bible. The sin we received from Adam is judgment of condemnation. That means we all go to hell by default unless we are born-again spiritually.

Why then did our Lord allow himself to baptized with water? He was showing through example. Thus Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [John 3:5 DRB]

“Unless a man be born again”… By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19.

I guess our Lord lied there as well?

Another question I have for you sense you think you know the bible so well. When did Apocalypse Chapter 12 take place, and who is the woman it speaks of?

 

[Gara3987]

That’s not what the Bible says.

In the Bible it says:

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [Luke 1:28., DRB]

Et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit: Ave gratia plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus. [Lucam I:28., Latin Vulgate]

It was through that Grace in which the Blessed Mother was born without original sin. You must understand that God gave Our Mother Graces and Virtues beyond Human Comprehension.

“God alone retained the full right in Her as his portion, and so much his portion as the dignity of Mother required. She alone was to call Him Son, and She alone was to be called Mother, a Mother worthy of having an incarnate God for a Son. Now as all this far surpassed in dignity the whole creation, so did it also take the precedence in the mind of the supreme Creator.” [Mysteries concerning Prov. 8:22]

** “Before He made anything from the beginning, I was set up from eternity and of old” [Prov. 8:23]. ** We, in our present state, conceive this eternity of God as an interminable time. What were the things “of old,” since none had been created? It is clear that the three Persons are here spoken of, namely, that She was foreseen from the eternal ages of the Divinity, by the Beings, which alone are ancient, namely, the indivisible Trinity (since all the rest, having a beginning, are recent), that She was foreseen when only the ancient Uncreated was, and before any ideals of the future creation were formed. Between these two extremes intervened the ideal of the hypostatic union which was to be verified ad extra through the intervention of the most holy Mary. Both were ordained together, immediately next to God and before any other creature, and it was the most wonderful decree ever passed or ever to be passed. The first and most admirable image in the mind of God, next to the eternal generation, was that of Christ and next to it, that of his Mother. [Mysteries concerning Prov. 8:23]

Ven Mary of Agreda
​

​

 

[LittleOne1]

Also let us not forget Genesis 3:15 “I will place emnity between you and the woman, between her seed your seed.”
Emnity means opposition or bitterness between the two. Obviously satan’s seed is sin and death while her seed is rightousness and life-meaning Christ. So this woman who Christ only refers to as woman (intersting that woman is what Adam called Eve and the New Adam, Christ calls the New Eve, Mary and they are the only two called woman in the bible) is this woman who will have opposition towards the serpent; and emnity is a strong opposition as in polar opposites in case people had a question.

Sorry if my earlier sarcasm caused rifts between two groups; we all may need to work on our tact instead of trying to do one upsmanships or upwomanships, we probably should reflect on Christ’s desire that we all be one! I thank God we have a Pope who cares so much about this!

 

[revelations]

This WHOLE argument is based on the false doctrine of *sola sciptura. *

When you consider the full deposit of faith: magisterium, and approved apparitions, it is very clear that Mary was immaculately conceived.

End of story.

 

[justinthemartyr]

believers is a propogandist, unable to actually listen or discuss anything.

 

[Syele]

**Actually, I was responding to **Syele and Believers, whose belief that babies can sin borders on the insane.
THAT’s why the question of infant baptism was asked. I’m not accusing you of being anti-Catholic.

If you can honestly believe that a fetus can sin (a ridiculously unbiblical, unreasonable and irrational belief), how can you NOT believe in infant baptism?

THAT question remains to be answered.

1. I do not go about alling your beliefs bordering on insanity, nor do I call you irrational.
2. I stated our definitions of sin are different. If you cant deal with that then so be it.
3. Babies are NOT held accountable for their sin so why is it such a big deal?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mary was without sin. How else could Jesus be born of a woman if she was with sin, not possible, unless you believe in a Jesus who was not born with sin. Even Satan tried to taint Mary with sin and could not succeed.

Those who have ears to hear what the Lord Jesus states about his Mother in his revealed word.

See revelations 12:13
When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.
14
But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, 11 so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year.
15
The serpent, 12 however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current.
16
But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth.
17
Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus. 13 (18) It took its position 14 on the sand of the sea.

 

[lurdes]

I can’ t even read these anymore.

It is one thing to say that I don’t understand how this doctrine could be true, given my limited understanding of koine Greek, etc.

It is quite another thing to say that you know that another person sinned when there is no evidence for it.

Here is the Good News: As a faithful mother, the Virgin Mary would much rather hear her good name sullied than that of her Son.

Here is the Bad News: As a good Son, the Lord feels the same way.

I feel the same way I don’t understand how people say they love Jesus but hate his mother, I know that as a unperfect human I would defend my mother, can you imagined how Jesus most feel when there is people trying to put his mother down.

 

[lurdes]

The problem with history is that it is often recorded in a subjective manner, the writer writes and records from his point of view and many times that point of view is skewed, reshaped, one sided or even down right biased. In short, while the main theme of the object recorded in history might be accurate (Columbus “discovers” America) the surrounding details may not be or might be slanted. Was Columbus really the first human being to discover America?

To witness this more clearly, all you have to do is watch American presidents attempt to “rewrite” their legacy, often using the media or other corruptible “authorities” to accomplish their goals.

Sacred Scripture, however, has God as its authority and overseer. As such, there is no biased skewing within Sacred Scripture. It is Infallible bacause God is infallible. “Id est quod id est”

Recorded history is not infallible like God’s Word is.

Just thought I’d add my 2 cents in, this is a great thread! I’m so proud of you defenders of the Catholic Faith!

so what happen to the Jewish people and what hitler did has been recorded objectively?

 

[Jimdandy]

Please spend some time in Eucharistic adoration for the unkind things people say and teach others in reference to the Immaculate Heart of Mary,

And pray for unbelievers-esp the Divine Mercy Chaplet.

thanx

 

[lurdes]

I feel that to talk to non-believers or non-Christian Catholics is like going on circles no matter how many verses you find to show the Church teaching they will find one verse take out of context and try to tell you that the Church Jesus left us is wrong. is like the song that never ends…

 

[Cleopas]

I feel that to talk to non-believers or non-Christian Catholics is like going on circles no matter how many verses you find to show the Church teaching they will find one verse take out of context and try to tell you that the Church Jesus left us is wrong. is like the song that never ends…

I understand and appreciate that.

Interestingly enough, we often feel the same difference towards you all. No matter what Scriptures we give you it seems as if you will ignore them or find some church father, tradition, or council to quote, in order to give a different spin to the statements of Scripture itself so as to prop up your eisigesis.