All have sinned.. including Mary.

[estesbob]

The Eucharist is our affectionate and grateful remembrance of what Jesus did for us as we proclaim it by celebrating and partaking of it the way Jesus showed us.
To do it insincerely does make us subject to condemnation, whether it is a symbol or not.
Ananias and Saphira found that out when they were less than sincere in their offering to the church, as did those who were insincere that Paul spoke about in the early church.

The Eucharist was/is the central focus of all Chriistian worship for 1,500 years. Only in the last 500 years has anyone relegated it to the “quaint” custom you describe.

We disagree on the nature of the Eucharist -how do we resolve this?

 

[Goth_Catholic]

The problem with the Full of Grace statement is that it is taken from the word Kecharitomene. This word is also used in Ephesians 1:6:

to the praise of his glorious grace (Kecharitomene), with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

So all of us are blessed with Kecharitomene. Are we all sinless? Nope!!

No it doesn’t.

this is Ephesians 1:6 in greek

eis epainon doxēs tēs charitos autou ēs echaritōsen ēmas en tō ēgapēmenō

Kecharitomene is found only in Luke 1:28

 

[Goth_Catholic]

The word used in Ephesians is echaritosen which means someone who has graced bestowed to them. I think I may have posted that kecharitomene is in Ephesians which is a cut and paste error on my part. That’s what I get for trying to take a short cut in typing Both words have a similar meaning which was the point I was trying to make.

But not the same meaning. Kecharitomene is the present perfect tense, denoting a completed action that has a continuing effect. Meaning, Mary was graced and continues to be so. Which is why Luke 1:28 is interupted as “full” of grace, because it never dwindles, she always has grace. Echaritosen i think is the past tense, meaning it occured only once.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

You are on the right track about oaths.
That is exactly what Jesus was doing as He took the cup and said: “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” (Luke 22:20)
Jesus was declaring the oath of the New Testament with that cup of wine, which He earlier called the “fruit of the vine”.
Jesus also called Himself a Vine, but that was a figure of speech, as we all know. Jesus often used figures of speech to describe Himself or others.
The word “is” can also be used in a figure of speech, so to say it can only be used one way is a poor argument.

But Jesus did not take a vine and then say he was the vine. Here he takes the bread and wine and physically presents them as his body and his blood.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis I disagree brother. What leaps do I have to make specifically?

The Bread of Life Discourse on the Eucharist (John 6:31-71) for one - specifically, John 6:63.

Actually that’s not true. We hardly see anything regarding Mary in the first few centuries other then when she is mentioned with Christ. It’s not until the 4th and 5th centuries that these beliefs became more prominent. No early church father from the 1st or 2nd century comments on Mary’s sinless nature. If they do then show it to me. I’d genuinely be interested in reading it.

The Protoevangelium of James, written less than 100 years after the resurrection asserts Mary’s perpetual virginitiy, immaculate conception and the fact that Jesus had no uterine brothers.

I understand that. But something that Protestants make a good point of is that the RCC herself admits that many dogmas were created because they feel they understand scripture better. So not everything is as old as you may think. I don’t think Jesus gave the authority to the church like you imply. This authority is derived from interpretations of scripture and more specifically some of the ones quoted above. But then the RCC flat out says that the Bible is subordinate to the church. How can you derive authority from a subordinate? Having problems with authority is different from scriptural interpretations. I don’t believe that the RCC was ever given the final authority to interpret scripture.

The Catholic Church wrote and compiled the New Testament Scriptures.
The authority given the Church isn’t from a written scripture, so mush as it is from Jesus’ own mout in the scripture verses I quoted. Authority was given to the Church and the Church wrote it down - NOT the other way around.

The Catholic church did preserve the Bible throughout the ages. But I don’t think this makes them the ultimate authority on interpretations. As far as insults I hate that as well. I appreciate the feedback you provide and always look forward to good natured discussion with you:thumbsup:

PEACE

As I stated above - the Church INDEED was given final authority from Jesus himself and she in turn wrote down the Scriptures.

 

[peary]

Do you actually think that ANY of us sin because we want to???

Do you?

Yes. Many of us sin because we WANT to sin.

 

[brkn1]

The Catholic Church wrote and compiled the New Testament Scriptures.
**The authority given the Church isn’t **from a written scripture, so mush as it is from Jesus’ own mout in the scripture verses I quoted. Authority was given to the Church and the Church wrote it down - NOT the other way around.

The Apostolic Catholic Church wrote and compiled the New Testament Scriptures. I accept the traditions brought forth in scripture from that time. The writers had direct revelations from Jesus and the original Apostles, including Paul.
The Church which continues from the Apostolic Church does not have the authority to change or add to the Gospel first presented to the Church. Paul said so in God’s Word.

 

[c659smith]

Yes. Many of us sin because we WANT to sin.

Yes we sin because we want to. It is in our nature to sin. For we are selfish, inconsiderate, and have a drive for superiority.

But it is through the Holy Spirit that we have the graces at times to turn away from sin and work towards Holiness.

Oh no the protestants will not like that I used the** word **“works”

 

[c659smith]

Our Blessed Mother Mary though was, is, and always will be without sin for She is full of Grace.
The bible tells us so.

 

[revelations]

Again, it doesn’t matter what the bible says or not. It really doesn’t, seriously, it’s totally irrelevant to argue about this if we are going to constrict ourselves solely to the bible. Now, something to argue first would be the teaching authority of the church. But that is getting OT.

It’s seriously flawed logic to use a book canonized by the church to argue against the church. Look past the bible…there’s so much more everybody!

 

[elvisman]

The Apostolic Catholic Church wrote and compiled the New Testament Scriptures. I accept the traditions brought forth in scripture from that time. The writers had direct revelations from Jesus and the original Apostles, including Paul.
The Church which continues from the Apostolic Church does not have the authority to change or add to the Gospel first presented to the Church. Paul said so in God’s Word.

**Your ABSOLUTELY right! **
**Nothing can or should be added to the Gospel. That’s why the Catholic Church doesn’t do this . . .

**P.S. - Please read my post #507. It was an answer to your earlier question. You haven’t addressed it yet. **

 

[c659smith]

Again, it doesn’t matter what the bible says or not. It really doesn’t, seriously, it’s totally irrelevant to argue about this if we are going to constrict ourselves solely to the bible. Now, something to argue first would be the teaching authority of the church. But that is getting OT.

It’s seriously flawed logic to use a book canonized by the church to argue against the church. Look past the bible…there’s so much more everybody!

I agree totally.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Teachings, and Sacred Traditions.

And a little bit of common sense. If people would seal their lips for a moment and open their minds, heart, and soul they will reach the revealtion that the Catholic Church is the only way to salvation.

Alot of people take sections and paragraghs from the bible and contort them to fit their own convenences not God’s.

For instance Pauls writtings and many faith alone theories for they do not read all of Paul’s letters and conjoin them as to what he is trying to saying and who or what he is talking about…

 

[elvisman]

Again, it doesn’t matter what the bible says or not. It really doesn’t, seriously, it’s totally irrelevant to argue about this if we are going to constrict ourselves solely to the bible. Now, something to argue first would be the teaching authority of the church. But that is getting OT.

It’s seriously flawed logic to use a book canonized by the church to argue against the church. Look past the bible…there’s so much more everybody!

 

[peary]

Show me where I have said SHE IS SINFUL…

I haven’t said it because I can’t know for sure. So I can’t be wrong since I don’t take a stance on something I can’t prove…

Something to think about: to be “full” or “filled with grace” means that sin is absent.

 

[brkn1]

**It carried the WORD **of God (the 10 Commandments).
John 1:1 CLEARLY states:
"In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the Word WAS God (Jesus)"
This prefigured Mary, who carried the WORD within her (Jesus).

**Look at the following comparison from 2 Sam. 6:9-14 **where David says:
"How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" He left the ark in the hill country of Judea for three months. David danced and leapt in front of the ark and everyone shouted for joy. The house of Obededom, which had housed the ark, was blessed, and then David took the ark to Jerusalem"

Compare this now with the text from **Luke **1:39-45
In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord"
Verse 56 goes on to say:
"Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home."

The Ten Commandments are not God. The Bible being God’s Word is not God either.
John’s use of the name Word (Logos) to identify Jesus does not make Jesus anywhere near the same thing as words, even if they are God’s words on stone tablets that He wrote Himself.
(2Samuel 6:2) speaks of the Ark where God is described as dwelling between the cherubims, not inside of the Ark, which is necessary for the symbolism you put forth to have a reasonable “correctness” to it.

 

[Canto]

Hi, have been reading all the posts today and though I would add a few bits

We are saved via the grace of God (Eph 2:5),
Mary is full of grace (Lk 1:28)
Jesus saves His people from their sins (Mt 2:21)
He is able to keep us from sin (Jude 1:24)

If Jesus can keep us from sin, can’t Mary be sinless? The Church teaches that because of Jesus Mary is sinless

Κεχαριτωμενη / Kecharitomene is ONLY found at Lk 1:28

It is a perfect, passive participle and used as a title

Titles mean something don’ they?

Even some Protestant scholars (as quoted by other posters) will tell you it relates to grace and not simply ‘highly favoured’

Being a perfect, passive participle it means that Mary was filled with divine grace before the annunciation and remains full of this divine grace.

If she was filled before the annunciation, when was the most logical time for this to happen? Her conception?

If Mary is full of grace, how is their room in her for sin?

Would God want His Son, our Messiah (and Mary’s!) to be growing in a sinful body?

Why would God want His Son born of a Virgin if He didn’t want her sinless.

St. Ambrose said “Well is she only called full of grace, who only obtained the grace, which no other woman deserved, to be replenished with the author of grace”

If God can save us from sin, is it that hard to believe the He saved Mary?

 

[elt1956]

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.

Rom 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Therefore… ALL have sinned including Mary.

Luk 1:46
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

Luk 1:47
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

We Catholics believe we are “born again” through Baptism which washes aways the “sin of condemnation”, Original Sin. As far as Our Mary sinning, I don’t think God would let His son be born of an ordinary human being. Whether you believe she was sinless or not, I believe she must have been an extraordinary person to carry the son of God for nine months. She is a very special person to us. Peace.

 

[LutheranDK]

Because that passage is a classic case of hyperbole in order to make a point.
Do you REALLY believe that ALL have sinned?
What about the severly retarded or people with other severe mental disorders.
What about babies? Toddlers? Have they ALL sinned?
I think not.

By the grace of God, having lived a sinless life was possible for the Blessed Mother because she was spared from Original Sin.

All are sinners - by nature. Sin is a fundamental human condition on this side of the recreation of Heaven and Earth.
The view that “toddlers” and small children are innocent and sinless is a very understandable one from a human perspective…but it is not Scriptural.
Usually, I have some objections to simple one-liners, but this one seems to be the exception. All have sinned. Period.

And, finally, you have not given any arguments that support your view - just made a statement. Please present something from Scripture that proves your point.

 

[Lampo]

All are sinners - by nature. Sin is a fundamental human condition on this side of the recreation of Heaven and Earth.
The view that “toddlers” and small children are innocent and sinless is a very understandable one from a human perspective…but it is not Scriptural.
Usually, I have some objections to simple one-liners, but this one seems to be the exception. All have sinned. Period.

And, finally, you have not given any arguments that support your view - just made a statement. Please present something from Scripture that proves your point.

Does your common sense tell you that infants, babies, toddler and the severely retarded can sin? If so, what is your understanding of sin? What elements are needed to constitute a sin? As a Lutheran, you don’t believe in two kins of sin (mortal/venial), correct? If you don’t believe in two kinds of sin, what do you make of this passage?: 1 John 5:16-17 “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.”

 

[MrS]

Does your common sense tell you that infants, babies, toddler and the severely retarded can sin? If so, what is your understanding of sin? What elements are needed to constitute a sin? As a Lutheran, you don’t believe in two kins of sin (mortal/venial), correct? If you don’t believe in two kinds of sin, what do you make of this passage?: 1 John 5:16-17 “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.”

Personally I expect the answer to come from his teachers at the theology school he is atending.

Makes me smile… one of my 6 daughters-in-law is Lutheran, and she often calls herself Catholic Lite. I usually just smile, and say “…I know, Ang, but until, and if, the lite comes on, you are still in the dark…and God is there with you.”