All have sinned.. including Mary.

[Gabriel_of_12]

There were also fathers and popes who thought she did indeed sin. Here are a couple:
.N.D. Kelly comments:

“Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.” (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)

**I dont know if you know this or not, but Origen was almost excommunicated by the Catholic church, and his later writings were not accepted as church teaching, and was labeled border line heretic. The one thing to consider about these authors and the immaculate conception, as they write is to understand how God could save Mary from sin, from her conception, and remain sinless throughout her life.

Now the other ECF clearly define her sinless life, these two mystical writers you selected because of the depth insight into the mysteries of God, At your first glance, your prejudices against Mary’s sinless life seems justified, but it is not. Because Origen though he was martyred, is not a canonized Saint of the Catholic church, ST. Augustine is a canonized saint of the Catholic church, proves his belief and writings are authentic and in full communioin with the church’s teaching on Mary’s immaculate conception and lived a sinless life.**

Augustine Bishop of Hippo “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”
Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump., sermon 2)

**These writings of St. Augustine do not confirm Mary sinned. The depht of Augustine does not appear what you concluded on the surface. St. Augustine is dealing with the savior of Mary, and the humanity that Jesus took, confirming her Motherhood of God made flesh. Please dont quote Catholic saints and use their writings to teach against what they believed.

Pope innocent the third, is not considered an ECF. Any how, he writes of Mary in comparison with the first Eve, it is not dealing with Mary having Sinned, He is dealing with How the first Eve knew no sin but brought sin into the world, and Mary was conceived in a world of sin and brought into the world NO SIN Jesus her son.

IF you would just read and believe what these Fathers of the Catholic church taught it will bring you closer to God. They did not teach against the dogma of Mary being immaculately conceived and lived a sinless life, If they taught that Mary sinned, they would have been excommunicated not made a Saint of the Catholic church. Something to think about when you read the early church fathers.**

 

[peary]

According to the facts. I know this maybe hard for you to accept that your church is not what you may think it is…

Well, it’s obvious you are not going to change our minds in here. I do not understand why you continue to badger us in this manner. Maybe this is how you get off. I have better things to do.

 

[Syele]

Babies are NOT held actountable for their sins because they CAN’T sin.
To believe so IS irrational AND does boeder on insanity. They can have no malice and therefor CANNOT sin - PERIOD.

Calling me insane in all caps is no different than before, you still ignored the point. My definition of sin is different than yours. I NEVER said babies have malice. I believe malice is not necessary to make something sin. You obviously have no understanding of my beliefs nor do you care what I believe or why because you’d rather write me off as insane!

I think you are irrational for refusing to understand that what you call sin is not what I call sin.

I can accept and respect your beliefs as yours without simply calling what I don’t understand insanity. There is no way to have a conversation with someone who is yelling that I’m crazy without listening to even what I mean.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity Proves Mary was without sin from the Prophets.

A woman of sin has to have birth pains while giving birth. Mary gave birth to Jesus without birth pains, thus she was saved by Jesus from original sin immaculately. Because Jesus has been our Savior before the foundation of the world.
Ephesians 1: 4
as he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel." 16 To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

Mary remains a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Mary is full of God’s Grace, that God had placed enmity between Mary and the serpent, that birth pains never affected Mary from Adams and Eve’s original sin, Thus she was saved immaculately in the womb of St. Anna, according to the prophet Isaiah.

Isaiah 66: 7 Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child. 8a. Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? Can a country be brought forth in one day, or a nation be born in a single moment? 9 Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God. 10 Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her, all you who love her; Exult, exult with her, all you who were mourning over her! 14 When you see this, your heart shall rejoice, and your bodies flourish like the grass; The LORD’S power shall be known to his servants, but to his enemies, his wrath.

God sent his son born of a woman:

Galatians 4: 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption. 6 As proof that you are children, 4 God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.

Psalms 45: 10 Daughters of kings are your lovely wives; a princess arrayed in Ophir’s gold comes to stand at your right hand. 14 All glorious is the king’s daughter as she enters, her raiment threaded with gold; 15 In embroidered apparel she is led to the king. .
18 I will make your name renowned through all generations; thus nations shall praise you forever

This prophecy is fulfilled in Luke 1: 46 And Mary said: 16 "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; 47 my spirit rejoices in God my savior. 48 For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. 49 The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50 His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him. 51 He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart.

Isaiah 62: 3 You shall be a glorious crown in the hand of the LORD, a royal diadem held by your God. 4 No more shall men call you “Forsaken,” or your land “Desolate,” But you shall be called “My Delight,” and your land “Espoused.” For the LORD delights in you,
and makes your land his spouse. 5 As a young man marries a virgin, your Builder shall marry you; And as a bridegroom rejoices in his bride so shall your God rejoice in you.

Isaiah prophecy of Jesus being called from the Virgin Mary’s womb.
Isaiah 49: 1 Hear me, O coastlands, listen, O distant peoples. The LORD called me from birth, from my mother’s womb he gave me my name.

Isaiah 7: 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

 

[guanophore]

I agree with the OP. All have sinned, including Mary.

Have you ever looked at the passage that Paul is quoting when he uses that phrase? Has it ever occurred to you that you might be taking this out of context?

Rom 3:10
10 as it is written:

 

[justasking4]

Babies are NOT held actountable for their sins because they CAN’T sin.
To believe so IS irrational AND does boeder on insanity. They can have no malice and therefor CANNOT sin - PERIOD.

Do babies need ti be saved?

 

[guanophore]

Well, it’s obvious you are not going to change our minds in here. I do not understand why you continue to badger us in this manner. Maybe this is how you get off. I have better things to do.

I think maybe he feels divinely called to a form of grim reaper type of ministry. He doesn’t think that we should wait until the end of the age, but wants to pull out what he considers to be weeds among the wheat as soon as possible.

 

[peary]

I think maybe he feels divinely called to a form of grim reaper type of ministry. He doesn’t think that we should wait until the end of the age, but wants to pull out what he considers to be weeds among the wheat as soon as possible.

The last thing to know it’s in water is a fish.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

According to the facts. I know this maybe hard for you to accept that your church is not what you may think it is…

The same could be said for you. The only difference is, we have heaven on our side

 

[justasking4]

The same could be said for you. The only difference is, we have heaven on our side

Yes, even my church can be wrong since no man or church is infallible.
What do you think i have on my side if you have heaven?

 

[Gara3987]

There were also fathers and popes who thought she did indeed sin. Here are a couple:
.N.D. Kelly comments:

“Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.” (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)

Augustine Bishop of Hippo “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”
Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”
Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump., sermon 2)

And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed. [Luke 2, 34-35]

“For the fall”… Christ came for the salvation of all men; but here Simeon prophesies what would come to pass, that many through their own wilful blindness and obstinacy would not believe in Christ, nor receive his doctrine, which therefore would be ruin to them: but to others a resurrection, by their believing in him, and obeying his commandments.

Simeon’s prophecy was foretelling that Our Blessed Mother would feel a great deal of suffering with The Crucification of Our Lord; and it will be as if a sword will pierce Her soul. It had nothing to do with doubt, The Blessed Mother already knew everything that was to take place.

You have to be careful with reading what some of the Fathers of the church wrote for some of it is hard to understand and not only that but can be easily misinterpreted. You will end up confusing yourself further. The Bible is also easy to misinterpret.

Take Apoc. Chapter 12, one question to ask is when exactly did this take place? The answer is 1 Anno Mundi, and is directly connected to [Gen 1, 3-5]

This Chapter explains when God showed the Angels who was to be the Mother of the Word (Christ) and It was equitable, that all the divine attributes should exert themselves in Her, without reserve, so far as She was capable; and that She be inferior only to Christ our Lord. And also the fall of Lucifer and his followers.

And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. [Apoc. 12, 2]

*“in pain to be delivered” *Right here most would take the literal sense that Child birth is painful. The truth of the matter is that She felt no physical pain for God our Father will that to be. The *“pain” *She felt was the knowledge of the events that were to transpire, that would become Simeon’s prophecy.

Saint Augustine also believed that all unbaptized babies went strait to Hell, and there are other Saints who explained that unbaptized Babies went to Limbo, Saint Thomas Aquinas would be one.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by guanophore
I think maybe he feels divinely called to a form of grim reaper type of ministry. He doesn’t think that we should wait until the end of the age, but wants to pull out what he considers to be weeds among the wheat as soon as possible.

peary
The last thing to know it’s in water is a fish.

:extrahappy: :bowdown:

 

[KJK80]

What do you think i have on my side if you have heaven?

I think we’re all still trying to figure that out.

Let’s assume for just a moment however that you’re absolutely right in everything you have said here. All those who have discussed with you are wrong and you’re right.

How does that make you feel? What have you gained here? Do you feel your relationship with God is the better for it? What do you think God thinks? You’re welcome to back your answers with Scripture,

 

[elvisman]

Do babies need ti be saved?

Babies are born with the stain of original sin. They are in need of a savior. BUT - that’s not the point.

Did the baby commit the sin? No. Is the baby capable of commiting sin. No. THAT’S the point of the OP.
Because of Original sin, we are born with concupiscience - the proclivity toward sin.

You and Syele would rather turn the argument around to blame the child for Original sin - because you don’t have a leg to stand on. That’s the only way you can rationalize your belief.

You know that the argument in favor of the belief that babies - and fetuses - are capable of sinning is not only illogical - it’s ridiculous and TOTALLY unsupported by scripture.

Let me as you and Syele a question:
What makes sin a sin - the action or the intent behind the action?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It is surprising to call every one a sinner. A child is born in a house. Why is he a sinner?. He has done nothing yet? Is it because his birth is due to intercourse? What is the reason of the child being sinner?

If the intercourse between married couple is a sin then it is un-natural teaching. O.K. every man, every child is a sinner. The result of sin is death. The church teaches that Jesus took away the sins of the world or the sins of some people. But we see that every one dies. It means that the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection did not save any one. He could not take away any one’s sins.

It is all a complicated theory of the church about the original sins, just like all other un-natural theories of son of God and Trinity and begotten son and only begotten son. Some say that Mary was a sinner. And Jesus was born of a sinner lady. Why??

It’s not complicated. If someone is a drug addict, & her child is born with an addiction - it’s because the child is in the mother & from her. But the child is not the one who took the drugs; the mother is.​

So with original sin - the sin & fault is that of Adam.

 

[Alexius]

**
IF you would just read and believe what these Fathers of the Catholic church taught it will bring you closer to God. They did not teach against the dogma of Mary being immaculately conceived and lived a sinless life, If they taught that Mary sinned, they would have been excommunicated not made a Saint of the Catholic church. Something to think about when you read the early church fathers.**

That is not exactly true. Though there were some Fathers who seem to believe in the Immaculate Conception, there are many who clearly did not. You are correct in stating that many emphasized (or tried to work out) how Mary needed a savior. Some like St. John Chrysostom believed she had committed venial sins, such as when Jesus seems to criticize Mary. This did not prevent them from being canonized, though, because it was not defined. They were free to hold to many different theories of Mary’s sinlessness, yet apparent need of a savior.

 

[Jimdandy]

Enough already! Sheech-all of us here are sinners, are we not?

When we die it will not matter how others have sinned-only what sins we have staining our soul at the time.

I am so perplexed that people feel the need to argue about Our Lady’s Grace and her perpetual virginity.

Agree to disagree and move on-
Unless you are fluent in the languages of ancient Greek, Latin,and Hebrew, not to mention English-translation of the Bible literally is challenging and a literalistic impossibility.

State your beliefs,
Keep praying to God for enlightenment.
Stop belittling others for their beliefs.

Peace.Out

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Did death pass upon “all” men?
What about Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven?
I’m afraid there are exceptions to the rule by God’s intervention. Mary was sinless, since she was conceived preserved free from original sin and fully cooperated with God’s grace.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

If “all” does not mean “all” in Romans 3 - why does it mean “all” in 1 Timothy 2.4 ?​

• 1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men;
• 1Ti 2:2 For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
• **1Ti 2:3 **For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
• [1Ti 2:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Ti&chapter=2&verse=4&version=kjv#4)** Who will have all men to be saved**, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
• **1Ti 2:5 **For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
• [1Ti 2:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=1Ti&chapter=2&verse=6&version=kjv#6)** Who gave himself a ransom for all**, to be testified in due time.
• **1Ti 2:7 **Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, [and] lie not; a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
  The logic that denies that Romans 3 speaks of **all **men, makes 1 Time 2 speak of some men:
• Who will have some men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
• Who gave himself a ransom for some, to be testified in due time.
  That sounds like Calvinism to me - you’ve just helped to support Limited Atonement.

Even more important - on what principle of interpretation does one rely to find that all have fallen short of the Glory of God…" means “some have fallen short of the Glory of God…” while finding that all means all in 1 Tim. 2 ? There must be some principle - otherwise, one makes the Bible mean only what one wants it to.

Besides, to limit the sinfulness of mankind is to limit the scope of God’s grace as Saviour. This idea splits mankind into two, by requiring two economies of salvation, & not one. It has explosive consequences

 

[peary]

Enough already! Sheech-all of us here are sinners, are we not?

When we die it will not matter how others have sinned-only what sins we have staining our soul at the time.

I am so perplexed that people feel the need to argue about Our Lady’s Grace and her perpetual virginity.

Peace.Out

The ‘attack’ on Mary’s maternity as Mother of the Church and her role in salvation history stems directly to a loss in the sacredness of motherhood, the holiness of the family, and the spiritual meaning of motherhood. The attacks have become more vehement in direct proportion for those protestant denominations (and non-deminations) which have accepted divorce, feminism, birth control, abortion, and a general hatred of children(statistics on abuse bears out this last remark). The “rule of thumb” for those who have such hatred for the mother of Jesus, for the most part and in my own inquiry, is that they are divorced (sometimes more than two or three times), they practice or have practiced artificial contraception, some have had abortions, and they have failed in child-rearing. They hide behind this hatred of the mother of Christ because they can’t face themselves and have severe parent issues themselves. It’s projection of their own inner psyches under the guise of being ‘saved’ when, in fact, they are the most loss of any souls.

 

[unixfudotnet]

I haven’t read all the pages of this thread yet the gist of Catholicism is that Jesus left Peter and the apostles in charge of the Church. Spoken Word has been and was around longer than Written Word. Not everything is written in Scripture. Not everything is meant to be taken literally. Not everything is translated perfectly.

This is where the Church comes in, to help clarify the situation.

This is the main difference between the Catholic Church and Protestant sects. Catholics hold true to the Spoken Word and the Written Word as been the complete Truth.

Reading the Scripture alone (especially other books than the Gospels) will not give you a clear understanding. Much is not clear and some of it is meant to be taken literally and much of it isn’t. Also many gaps exist, that the Church helps clarify, as it has since Jesus walked the earth in human flesh.

Yet, in the end… it comes down to faith. You can’t really combat faith with personal interpretations of the Scripture. You need to trust in the Church’s teachings, just as Jesus trusted Peter.