All have sinned.. including Mary.

[NDfan]

I know this have been repeatedly said already but I just want to contribute to the simplest tem possibly as my faith is as simple as that of a child.

Grace ,I believe is the opposite of sin, so when the archangel Gabriel delivered the message of GOD HIMSELF to Mary , Hail full of GRACE, she is exactly like that full of grace without any sin.

Second can anyone please explain to me this one? How can a water remain pure and clean if the vessel holding the water is dirty? Jesus being GOD Incarnate and the WORD who dwelt among us is the pure and holy water and Mary chosen by GOD HIMSELF to be the vessel. Mary was cleansed from the stain of original sin and sin thereafter to carry JESUS the clean living water.

Another is, if Mary was a sinner, how can be JESUS be credible to the people He will preach later on? People will not believe Him to be the SON of GOD the Messiah promised to them if people knew that Mary was a sinner. How can we accept Jesus to be the son of God if His Mother is a sinner?

Because Jesus is GOD incarnate. HE also demonstrated this by showing HIS power over sin. HE forgave sin and as a result people were healed. HE also rose from the dead which is why we believe.

But remember also when Jesus made the claim to be the bread of life WHO came down from Heaven the Jews grumbled and said:

Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

So obviously the Jews understood Jesus’ family to be ordinary sinful people. They certainly don’t ever refer to Mary as sinless. No one does. Jesus doesn’t even do this and has the perfect opportunity to in Luke when the woman shouts:

“Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” to which Jesus replies:

But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Why doesn’t Jesus raise Mary up to the level that you do right then and there?

Lastly if Mary is not the Immaculate Conception and was conceived with original sin then Jesus who is GOD will inherit that original sin from His mother. But that is not possible because the very nature of GOD is oppossite of sin.

Correct. You just answered your own question. Jesus cannot inherit sin from Mary because HE is GOD incarnate. Mary doesn’t have to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless. It’s impossible for GOD to inherit sin from us because then the whole universe and everything in it would cease to exist.

Am I making sense? Please anyone I need an honest charitable person to reply to this. Thanks.

You are making some sense but you contradicted yourself in the last statement. First you say Jesus would inherit sin if Mary was sinful but then you say it’s impossible because Jesus is the opposite of sin. So then by your reasoning it wouldn’t matter if Mary was sinful or not. Jesus is GOD and cannot inherit sin from anyone.

The question I have for you is this. Is there anyway GOD could be tainted by sin??

Pax Domini

Pax Domini to you too

 

[Lapell]

But Estes if I wanted to be a Priest I could not marry. If I were a priest I could not marry as well. It may be a discipline but suppose someone doesn’t want to partake in that discipline but still wants to be a priest? They can’t. Saying it’s a discipline is kind of dancing around the primary objection.

Well, widow men can!

 

[estesbob]

Well, widow men can!

There is a Priest in the Diocese of Galvetson/Houston that was married, divorced and did not recieve an anullment. At his ordination his 17 year old son(with a mohawk haircut) and 20 years old daughter(9 months Pregnant) carried the bread and wine to the altar at the offertory. The bishop remarked that was a first for him.

 

[NDfan]

Repeat away Giovanni. I never get tired of reading or hearing it. I could offer a little more insight into Jesus in his mother’s womb and His not dwelling where sin is present.

This Precious Blood which saves us (and washes away our sins and makes us whole again). This Precious Blood which was shed on the way to Calvary and poured out on the Cross;and (Heb. 12:24) which speaks more eloquently than the blood of Abel, was formed as the blood of every human being’s blood is formed in it’s mother’s womb. The biological identity of Christ’s blood was drawn out of the identity of his Mother’s blood. A little ridiculous , don’t you think?..that the Blood which redeems all mankind could have for its foundation and origins the blood of a sinner.

Wait, it gets better. Mary conceived without human intervention. So those who think she sinned are saying that God the Holy Spirit in his Mysterious Overshadowing whose fruit is the Incarnation, not only dwelt where sin was but also co-created with it.

Obliged to logically follow this train of thought we need to now include Our Heavenly Father in the recipe; because if Christ now belongs to Psalm 50 as we do “In guilt I was born, a sinner was I conceived”, and the Holy Spirit co-created with sin, then God the Father is sin too since Jesus said, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30).

Preposterous with a capital “P” wouldn’t you say? That’s where one ends up if they logically pursue denial of the Immaculate Conception.

In the Magnificat Mary the Mother of God calls God her saviour (Luke 1:47), not because she was a sinner, not because God purified her from sin at her conception, but because God preserved his Mother from all stain of sin always and forever.He gave her this singular privilege.Wouldn’t any one of us want to do that for our own mother if we could ?

I had read somewhere that Jesus said, “Whoever honors my Mother honors me.”.If you find it or know where it is written maybe you could post that info here. I’ve read some beautiful expressions of love for our Blessed Mother in this thread. Thank-you for sharing them and God bless you each and all.

Actually Jesus never said that. He says this though:

Matthew 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

HE also says this:

Matthew 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother

PEACE

 

[Lapell]

Giovanni GOD dwelled in the Temple where there was sin. Jesus dwelled among sinners and came in contact with them. The Holy Spirit dwells in us upon baptism. Does that mean the Holy Spirit is now stained with sin??

PEACE

But their blood doesn’t run in His, right? And Mary’s blood had to run into Him when He was not yet born. So here comes the necessity of the Immaculate Conception of Mary!

 

[Lapell]

How the Virgin Mary could be immaculate within her mother’s womb is another great mystery, of course. But God being all-powerful, it’s just a piece of cake to Him!

 

[NDfan]

=guanophore wrote

What makes you think the RCC has issued “complete interpretations for the entire bible”? No such thing has happened. But, it is also more than 3 verses. Here is a good article on it.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp

I wasn’t implying that the RCC had interpretations of scripture written up nice and tidy in one book to buy. I was trying more to counter the argument of only 3 verses.

The Catechisms present the Teaching of the Church. Scripture is used to support and explain the Teachings. They are not “interpretations” of scripture. Catholicism is not a "bible based’ religion.

I look at it the other way around I guess. When I read the Catechisms I see explanations of scripture even though you’re right it’s not written as “here is what John 5 verse 1-10 means”. No argument here. I’m well aware that the RCC is not a Bible based religion. It’s scripture plus sacred tradition.

 

[estesbob]

I I’m well aware that the RCC is not a Bible based religion. It’s scripture plus sacred tradition.

Plus the teachings of the magestrium. All of which must be in agreement.

 

[NDfan]

Do you not believe that Jesus was speaking to the Apostles when he authorized them to make disciples?

No I believe this message was meant for all Christians. Certainly in this specific instance HE was speaking to the Apostles, but the Apostles were not going to live forever. So how else could disciples be made if all Christians did not carry the message forward. Please show me in scripture where Jesus tells the Apostles to appoint leaders or successors to carry the message on. You won’t be able to find it. The only directive that is attested to by the ECFs is I believe by either Ignatius, Clement, or maybe Irenaeus. That directive states that the Apostles left instructions to make sure teachings of the church stayed consistent with Apostolic teachings. No church father ever claims that an Apostle told them to do specific things outside of that. If they did please show me.

Matt 28:18-19
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples”

Yes but notice Jesus states that all authority in Heaven and Earth has been given to HIM. He doesn’t say now I am passing it to you. HE’s basically saying I have authority in Heaven and on Earth now so I can tell you what to do in place of my Father.

It’s like your father owning a business and then passing authority on to you. You gather the workers and say “authority has been given to me over this business, now go and do your jobs”. The workers don’t think all the sudden they too have authority. They now receive direction from the son instead of the father.

The Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is “subordinate”. On the contrary, the Holy Writings and the Holy Tradition are equal in truth and authority because they both come from the same Source. To whom was authority given, then?

15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:15

Someone on this thread or another stated it that way. Implying that the Bible was subordinate to the church. That’s not my position. With regard to Titus, please re-read the entire passage to see what Paul is referring to:

2:1 But as for you, teach what accords with sound [1] doctrine

Paul then goes on to explain this sound doctrine.

I don’t disagree with you that we need competent, GODLY leaders in our churches. Paul gives this charge to Timothy and Titus so we can’t argue the point. But you are trying to derive authority within the RCC by linking Jesus directive to the Apostles, and then this quote from Titus. I’m saying that Jesus is expecting all Christians to make disciples. Certainly we need church leaders who fit Paul’s criteria. And they should be teaching good sound doctrine also as Paul states that is based on Apostolic teachings. But there’s no directive from Jesus that states Apostolic succession.

Don’t you think the persons who wrote the texts had a pretty good idea what they meant to say?

Sure why wouldn’t I?

PEACE

 

[Lapell]

Well put, estesbob!

 

[Lapell]

No I believe this message was meant for all Christians. Certainly in this specific instance HE was speaking to the Apostles, but the Apostles were not going to live forever. So how else could disciples be made if all Christians did not carry the message forward. Please show me in scripture where Jesus tells the Apostles to appoint leaders or successors to carry the message on. You won’t be able to find it. The only directive that is attested to by the ECFs is I believe by either Ignatius, Clement, or maybe Irenaeus. That directive states that the Apostles left instructions to make sure teachings of the church stayed consistent with Apostolic teachings. No church father ever claims that an Apostle told them to do specific things outside of that. If they did please show me.

Yes but notice Jesus states that all authority in Heaven and Earth has been given to HIM. He doesn’t say now I am passing it to you. HE’s basically saying I have authority in Heaven and on Earth now so I can tell you what to do in place of my Father.

It’s like your father owning a business and then passing authority on to you. You gather the workers and say “authority has been given to me over this business, now go and do your jobs”. The workers don’t think all the sudden they too have authority. They now receive direction from the son instead of the father.

Someone on this thread or another stated it that way. Implying that the Bible was subordinate to the church. That’s not my position. With regard to Titus, please re-read the entire passage to see what Paul is referring to:

2:1 But as for you, teach what accords with sound [1] doctrine

Paul then goes on to explain this sound doctrine.

I don’t disagree with you that we need competent, GODLY leaders in our churches. Paul gives this charge to Timothy and Titus so we can’t argue the point. But you are trying to derive authority within the RCC by linking Jesus directive to the Apostles, and then this quote from Titus. I’m saying that Jesus is expecting all Christians to make disciples. Certainly we need church leaders who fit Paul’s criteria. And they should be teaching good sound doctrine also as Paul states that is based on Apostolic teachings. But there’s no directive from Jesus that states Apostolic succession.

Sure why wouldn’t I?

PEACE

So when the Apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas as an Apostle, they were acting on their own? Come on, NDfan !

 

[guanophore]

The Vatican wants you to believe that sin is just a stain and that this stain can be washed away with water.

Please support this claim with official Catholic documents.

Never mind, you can’t because they don’t exist!

Therefore, I request that you stop your slander and calumny. You are bearing false witness against your neighbor.

Or do you think the 10 commandments don’t apply either?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Plus the teachings of the magestrium. All of which must be in agreement.

Question is, how does the scripture agree with the Tradition & Magesterial belief that Mary was sinless?

 

[justasking4]

**
Originally Posted by brkn1
Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law.

elvisman
That’s true - he did**.
Can point me to the Scripture that says Peter’s wife was alive when this happened?
I may have missed that . . .

She must have been alive. It seems much later we see a reference to Peter and his wife in I Corinthians 9:5 where we read:
Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
.

 

[estesbob]

Question is, how does the scripture agree with the Tradition & Magesterial belief that Mary was sinless?

"Hail Mary full of Grace plus numeorus Old tesatment references to the need for the tabenacle to be purifed(scriputre), it was descriibed as early as the first century(tradition) and has been a teaching of the Church for nearly 2,000 years(Magesterial)

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
God is the author and source of the Scriptures not the church. He used the church to discover what the canon was.

guanophore
It is both, ja4. Those fallible men you are always complaining about were an integral part of that process:

2 Peter 1:19-21
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but** men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."**

The scripture did not drop out of the sky. It came from the mind, heart, and pens of those fallible men.

There really is only one ultimate source for the inspired-inerrant scriptures and that is God. Men would used by God to pen the scriptures but they were not the source of there power and inspiration. Only God is.

 

[justasking4]

I am sure I am repeating what someone may have already said and what us catholics know to be true.
How can God dwell where sin is present. That does not happen, thus the Immaculate Conception and everything else that has to do with God’s perfect sinless creation, my Mother and God’s Mother. That is the truth, and if some don’t believe it, that’s just too bad. No argument. Just thick headed individuals who think they know better.

Here is what the scriptures say about the incarnation of Christ that made it possible for God to dwell where sin is present. Its found in Philippians 2:6-8;
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Jesus “limited” Himself of His powers and attributes as God so that He could live among men without destroying them. This makes the best sense in how a holy God could live among men without destroying them.

 

[estesbob]

There really is only one ultimate source for the inspired-inerrant scriptures and that is God. Men would used by God to pen the scriptures but they were not the source of there power and inspiration. Only God is.

So if man is incapable of interpeting scripture how can it be a source of the truth?

 

[elvisman]

She must have been alive. It seems much later we see a reference to Peter and his wife in I Corinthians 9:5 where we read:
Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
.

**This doesn’t speak to whether or not she is alive. **
Peter WAS married - that is certain. What is UNcertain is whether or not she was alive in Corinthians 9:5 OR Mark 1:30.
You want to debate from a purely Scriptural point of view? Then show me where it states that she was alive in these 2 passages. Paul’s assertion that Cephas was married doesn’t make the claim that he was not a widower. He is speaking of their rights as apostles.

 

[justasking4]

**
Originally Posted by justasking4
She must have been alive. It seems much later we see a reference to Peter and his wife in I Corinthians 9:5 where we read:
Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
.
elvisman
This doesn’t speak to whether or not she is alive**.
Peter WAS married - that is certain. What is UNcertain is whether or not she was alive in Corinthians 9:5 OR Mark 1:30.
You want to debate from a purely Scriptural point of view? Then show me where it states that she was alive in these 2 passages. Paul’s assertion that Cephas was married doesn’t make the claim that he was not a widower. He is speaking of their rights as apostles.

In every case in the scriptures that i’m aware of it never mentions Peter as being a widower. I think there is also a “tradition” that says that Peter and his wife both were killed in Rome at about the same time.