All have sinned.. including Mary.

[emeraldcoast]

Yes, and God chose to work through His creation. He could have burned them on rock or parchment. He did not. He chose those who loved Him with all of their hearts, minds, souls, and strength to transmit HIs immutable message.

By reading it in the light of the infallible Sacred Tradition from which it was produced!

On the contrary, Catholics trust in the promises of Christ, rather than our own fallible nature.

John 16:12-15
13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."

It is wrong for you to sow seeds of confusion and division, ja4. Your prophesies of dissention will not overpower the promises of Christ.

Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of apostolic succession?

3 part test:

Does it agree with Sacred Scipture?
Does it agree with Sacred Tradition?
Does it agree with Sacred Teaching?

No. .

Based on you interpretation. Why should we accept it?

The confusion started when the “reformers” took God and his Church out of the eqaution and told each individual they could figure things out for hemsleves.

Can someone please explain to me the difference between Sacred Teachings and Sacred Traditions? Thanks!

God Bless!

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3519830]You acted surprised with jmcrae last week when she told you the same thing. Are you trying to act innocent, or is your memory bad? How can an inerrant - inspired text be created from something that is not infallible?

It can create such a text but only if the source of is divine. In this case we attribute the God as the source of scripture in that He is revealing certain things that we could not discover through normal means.

Yes, the Divine Revelation includes the Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Scripture. The whole of the NT was formed from the Teachings of Jesus to the Apostles

.

Originally Posted by justasking4
Do catholics trust that their leaders are telling the truth at all times?

guanophore
Of course not! Was Peter acting in honesty when he refused to eat with the Gentiles? He is a fallible human being, just like the rest of us.

When do you not trust them? Can you give me a couple of examples?

 

[justasking4]

planten;3522372]**
The christian faith is a complete mystery. The original sin and all prophets are sinners. But the christians want to keep Jesus out of the list of the sinners. Why?. They say that wages of sin are death. Jesus died too. So he must have been a sinner. He died. That was due to some sin, or not?.**

Jesus did not die for His own sins (He never sinned) but the sins of mankind. God punished all the sins of men and women in the body of Christ on the cross. He took our punishment for these sins that would have condemned everyone.

The church wangles the matter here and there. We Muslims tell them that no man is a born sinner.

If no man is born a sinner how do explain that all men who eventually grow to adulthood do sin? In other words, are there any adult Muslims who claim to have never sinned?
Secondly, if you have small children under the age 8 for example do they all tell the truth all the time? If not, how did they learn to sin if the parents teach them to never tell lies?

The prophets are not sinners at all, Jesus and all.
What prophet claimed to have not sinned?

Look up Isaiah 6:5-6 for example on how the prophet Isaiah looked at himself in regards to sin. You also read Isaiah 53:5-6 which speaks specifically that all men.
You are correct though in saying that Jesus was not a sinner.

The church loves to make the prophets sinners. But they do not want that jesus should be a sinner even though he is a man and a prophet too. Why is that a special rule (loophole) for Jesus only. Let him be a sinner too.

Jesus is the exception to the rule that all men are sinners because of His nature i.e. being man and God in one person. In His birth He did not inherit the sin of Adam because of His miraculous birth of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary in her conception of Jesus. Jesus did not have a human father.

That is why he died too. And then he got up from the dead. The only person who did that. But after walking about and going to Galilee, he never said to any one that he had died and got up again. There is no such word in the bible. Jesus is not saying any such thing. But the christians are preaching that line.

Of course Jesus spoke of His death and resurrection. See Luke 24:44-49

As far as Muslims are concerned, no man is a born sinner. Prophets are not sinners.

Do all Muslims sin? When they do, what do they do when they do sin? How are they forgiven since they reject the only way to be forgiven?

(The bad examples of some prophets in the bible OT is totally wrong, Nothing like that is mentioned in the Quran.) Mary was also not sinner. Not at all. But who believes us !!

Why should we believe in the Quran which was written over 500 years after Christ and the New Testament?
The writings of the New Testament were written by the eyewitnesses which carries far more weight than a document written centuries later. Would you not agree?

 

[Agnes_Ainsworth]

Anyone who teaches anything different, and does not keep to the sound teaching which is that of our Lord Jesus Christ, the doctrine which is in accordance with true religion, is simply ignorant and must be full of self conceit - with a craze for questioning everything and arguing about words. 1 Timothy 6:3,4

There is only one doctrine common to all the thousands of “Bible alone” churches and that is the Roman Catholic Church is not infallible but every single one of them is, by definition. The revelation of Truth by the Holy Spirit has been a gradual process over 2000 years and God never denies Himself nor can he make mistakes. To come along 1500 years later with a new doctrine that gives permission to deny Scripture interpretations already given and confirmed by the Church is arrogance.

Just a little quote from Origen on Leviticus 12:2 circa AD 244

“And the Lord” it says "spoke to Moses,saying, "Speak to the children of Israel: and you shall say to them, “A woman,if she shall have received seed, and if she shall bear a male child, shall be unclean for seven days”. The expression,*if she shall have received seed,*which is placed before the words, *if she shall bear a male child, *would seem to be superfluous. But I wonder whether perhaps the whole statement has been made in this manner, lest Mary, who, according to the Prophets, would bear a male child without having received seed, should otherwise be thought to be unclean, by reason of the birth of the Saviour

 

[estesbob]

Why should we believe in the Quran which was written over 500 years after Christ and the New Testament?
The writings of the New Testament were written by the eyewitnesses which carries far more weight than a document written centuries later. Would you not agree?

Exaclty-kind of like emabracing man made doctrines created 1,500 years after Christ founded his Church

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Why should we believe in the Quran which was written over 500 years after Christ and the New Testament?
The writings of the New Testament were written by the eyewitnesses which carries far more weight than a document written centuries later. Would you not agree?

estesbob
Exaclty-kind of like emabracing man made doctrines created 1,500 years after Christ founded his Church

Huh? How does you statement follow from mine?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

When the Bible says that “all have sinned” Romans 3:23, of course it does not mean Jesus, unless God is a sinner. It refers to all mankind even Mary has sinned. How hard is that understand. Mary was not sinless or even exempt from original sin. No Bible passage even in the slightest sense refers this this idea.

DLC, do you think that contraception is OK?

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by **mozart-250 **
*Of course that is the bottom line.

Mary was (a) sinless during her entire lifetime (b) conceived without original sin…because…

…the Catholic church says so…

No matter whether it seems to violate Romans 3:23 or not. No matter whether there are better explanations available that do not violate Romans 3:23.

…the Catholic church says so…

Every other argument here is fluff.

Of course the issue here is that why should I believe your denomination just because it says so. I don’t take the word of any other denomination just because it says so (including my own). I need evidence. If I were to start taking the word of any random denomination without clear and convincing evidence, again you can get me to believe anything.

But that again is another issue.*

The issue is really as to whether or not Christ founded a Church which speaks and makes decisions in His Name because He gave it the authority to do so through its ministers. I believe that He did, and I further believe that it is the Catholic Church which has been given that authority on earth.

You know fully well that the Church has taught about Mary’s sinlessness and her perpetual virginity, not because it “says so”, but because of deep theological reflection on the Church’s scriptures (the bible) and making connections.

The Catholic Church is NOT a denomination. All nonCatholic ecclesial communities are denominations because they have initially broken away and/or are separated from the Church which Christ founded. The have “de-named” themselves away from the Church.

If you want evidence as to why the Church teaches the things that it does, you need to be honest with yourself and start studying the historic development of doctrine - NOT according to protestantism but from the reflections of the Church itself, which is the only reliable source in showing you why it teaches as it does. Also, it may be well to point out to you that Faith needs no ‘evidence’. And actually, the very existence of the Church for over two-thousand years is your best evidence.

In a nutshell, it is true that you cannot ‘do’ Faith and you cannot ‘get’ Faith. Faith is a gift of God given to us through His grace. I have no problem in accepting what the Church teaches as the Truth and the fullness of Faith. Others may have a problem with that, but I humbly admit that my Faith gives me peace when it comes to accepting the teachings of the Church because I know that it speaks for Christ, its founder, in the world. And we who belong to it belong to the body of Christ.

 

[Faith5]

Faith as mentioned in another post the word charitoo only appears twice in the NT. In Luke to describe Mary and in Ephesians to describe the people of the church in Ephesus. The only difference is Kecharitomene means it happened in the past sometime and Echaritosen means it happened in the present. But in both instances each party receives the same form of the root word grace which is Charitoo. So if Mary was sinless then so were the Ephesians and all their descendants.

And yes Jesus did receive flesh from Mary but in HIS divine state being conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit it was impossible for her to pass the stain of sin to HIM. Just as Jesus was not defiled by the leper HE touched or the demon possessed man. Again GOD cannot be stained by sin by touching a sinful person. It’s impossible.

I agree on the past and present nature of scripture. It makes sense that Genesis is referring to Jesus because we now know that he is the one who strikes down the devil. We also know that the devil nipped at HIS heel which is the crucifixion. But saying that Mary is the woman doesn’t make sense. Jesus is an eventual offspring of Eve just like Mary. So in saying that there will be hostility between the descendants or seed of the serpent and the descendants or seed of the woman means Eve. GOD created hostility or enmity between the 2 right away as seen in OT scripture. Eve is the mother of all humanity not Mary. We don’t descend from Mary.

PEACE be with you too always

Today’s Gospel reading was very informative. Two disciples were
walking on the road to Emmaus. Luke informs us the men were
hoping Jesus was the one to redeem Israel. At first the men were
not aware they were actually talking with Jesus.
Jesus tells them how foolish they are. They were slow of heart
to believe all that the prophets spoke!
Jesus then interpreted scriptures for them and they recognized
Jesus during the breaking of the bread.

There are scriptures we cannot understand on our own. We need guidance.There is no personal interpretations of scripture. How
does God guide us from age to age?

Everyone I talk to-myself included-believe Jesus can not be
corrupted. The incarnation was corruption free. Church Dogma.
Mary was absolutely free from sin from the first moment of her
conception. In the 3rd century St. Hippolytus called Mary “the
tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption.”
Why? Didn’t God become man to conquer sin? The flesh that
formed His human body was not sinful. In other words Mary
was redeemed by prevention rather than by cure.
All the events were anticipated by God.

It’s comforting to know Mary is the spiritual mother of all men–
not Eve! Mary in the Gospel of Luke answered God’s request
by saying in effect YES. Mary responded to Gabriel with: May
it be done to me according to your word. She stayed with her Son until His death on the cross. Eve and Adam sinned.
Being a child of God makes us children of the new Adam and
the new Eve.

I would be as confused as the two men on the road to Emmaus if
not for the guidance of the Church.

Peace

 

[guanophore]

Yes, Jesus was born a man, but you seem to ignore that He was both God and Man as the Son of Man which He used to describe Himself.
No man has the right to take on that title the way Jesus did, so your argument that Jesus was born (merely) as a man is invalid.

I agree.

When the Bible says that “all have sinned” Romans 3:23, of course it does not mean Jesus, unless God is a sinner. It refers to all mankind even Mary has sinned. How hard is that understand. Mary was not sinless or even exempt from original sin. No Bible passage even in the slightest sense refers this this idea.

Well, we can disagree on Mary.

I think that, in the context of the passage, Paul is speaking of original sin. He is making the point that the Jews have no advantage over the Gentiles, in that Jews are also born “fallen” with the stain of original sin. They don’t have any advantage over Gentiles.

This, however, does not explain all. There are some that are not "sinners’. The parents of John the Baptist are examples. Other examples are Enoch, and Elijah, who apparently did not pay the price of sin (death) but were “taken up”.

Can someone please explain to me the difference between Sacred Teachings and Sacred Traditions? Thanks! God Bless!

This is an excellent question, and I thank you for askng it. Catholics believe that there is One Deposit of Faith. This revelation came from Jesus, who has fulfilled all that God has revealed. In Him if found the fullness of Truth. This Truth was revealed in it’s entirety to the Apostles. The Apostles have passed on the Teachings of Jesus. This Teaching is found in two forms, the Scripture, and the Sacred Tradition (that portion of the divine revelation that is not included in the Scripture).

Matt 28:18-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

The Divine Deposit of Faith contains “all that I have commanded”. Some of that is in Scripture, and the remainder is preserved by word of mouth.

Does that answer your question?

 

[guanophore]

It can create such a text but only if the source of is divine. In this case we attribute the God as the source of scripture in that He is revealing certain things that we could not discover through normal means.

Yes, and Catholics affirm this. Yet, God chose to reveal His Truth through fallible men. In the same way, He chooses to reveal his Truth to this day through fallible man. The Catholic Church functions exactly as is described in the book of Acts at the Council of Jerusalem.

When do you not trust them? Can you give me a couple of examples?

When a priest, deacon, or leader (teacher) or what not tries to expound anything that is different from the Apostolic Teaching, then they are not to be trusted. For example, if a German monk decides that he can spurn the authority that was appointed by Christ, he is out of order.

 

[peary]

When the Bible says that “all have sinned” Romans 3:23, of course it does not mean Jesus, unless God is a sinner. It refers to all mankind even Mary has sinned. How hard is that understand. Mary was not sinless or even exempt from original sin. No Bible passage even in the slightest sense refers this this idea.

Yeah, what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

The other exception is Jesus Himself (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of humankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary.

Do you think it means that by the teaching that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin on her soul that it means that she was somehow ‘equal’ to God? God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when one is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him/her to be.

 

[Good_Fella]

NDFan claims that Jesus could not contract original sin, being a divine person. On the other hand, [other Protestants] claim that the virgin birth was necessary so that Jesus would not inherit the sin of Adam.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

It is true, Jesus could not contract original sin, since he is God. But because he is God, he should not be implicated in the sin of Adam. It would not be fitting. Catholics are mistaken if they assert that Jesus would have necessarily inherited a sinful nature from Mary unless she was preserved free from original sin. This is far from the truth and not definitively taught by the Magisterium of the Church: mere theological speculation on the part of individuals. However, God ordained that the mother of our Lord be preserved free from original sin, for a sinless Person must not be conceived by a sinful person. The Immaculate Conception occurred with regard to fittingness, not out of necessity. Our Marian doctrines are Christo-centric, or else they are false and worthless. Even though God had selected Mary to play a key role in our salvation, as the New Eve, by the grace of God, we must not think that God entirely depended on her to the point that her disobedience in the Annunciation would have forfeited our salvation. Her obedience was essential, which was foreseen by God, who would have chosen another maiden in her stead, but it was not absolutely necessary. God could have planned our salvation another way, but he chose to do it the way he did to reverse the fall.

We Catholics acknowledge Mary’s sinlessness and perfect obedience, exemplar of all Christians and the Church, but we also acknowledge the fact that Mary freely responded in a state of grace; for our free will is diminished when we become the slaves of sin and disobedience. We do not praise Mary for having saved us, but we praise her for having perfectly responded to God’s grace in accordance with God’s wise and fitting plan of salvation. If Mary were sinless, it’s because she was chosen to be the sinless mother of our Lord. The Immaculate Conception did not take place because it had to, but because it should, in accord with God’s wisdom. Jesus did not have to be baptized, as John protested, but the Father ordained that our Lord should be baptized according to his will. This isn’t a question of what necessarily has to be - but what should be apart from necessity. Because Adam and Eve brought about the fall of the human race, it would appear that it would take a new Adam and a new Eve to reverse the fall by God’s grace. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110) was the first Church Father to see this. Finally, there is no question of the vrgin birth taking place in order to preserve Jesus from original sin. Although Jesus is God, and cannot be stained by sin, the virgin birth simply occurred because a divine Person does not have a biological father. It is a mistake for Protestants to make this assertion, just as it is mistaken for Catholics to assert that the Immaculate Conception was necessary to keep Jesus from inheriting a sinful human nature.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Layp3rs0n]

I think it is important to consider how specific God was when he told Moses the instructions on how to build the Ark of the Covenant. It had to be perfect to hold the inspired word(Word?) of God. Why would the Ark of the New and Perfect Covenant have to be any less perfect…especially considering that if the contents the first Ark were the word of God inspired while the contents of the new Ark was the Word of God Himself in the flesh?!

 

[NeedImprovement]

… Our Marian doctrines are Christo-centric, or else they are false and worthless. Even though God had selected Mary to play a key role in our salvation, as the New Eve, by the grace of God, we must not think that God entirely depended on her to the point that her disobedience in the Annunciation would have forfeited our salvation. Her obedience was essential, which was foreseen by God, who would have chosen another maiden in her stead, but it was not absolutely necessary. God could have planned our salvation another way, but he chose to do it the way he did to reverse the fall.
:

A very interesting post Good Fella 3530640 (please feel free to correct me if I’ve removed too much context from around the selected quote).

True, our Blessed Mother Mary is the model par excellence of all virtues - obedience included, but I personally see her “Fiat” more in the light of consent to an invitation rather than obedience.

I’m also wrestling a little with the part about God ,"…would have chosen another maiden in her stead". I understand it in the sense that our salvation shouldn’t depend on the act of a human being, but the words themselves imply both that there might have been a second Immaculate Conception (which is a singular privilege) and that God didn’t know what he was doing when he moulded his own Mother; as Jeremiah 1:5 says:" Before I formed you in the womb I knew you."

Your thoughts?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3524369]
Originally Posted by justasking4
When do you not trust them? Can you give me a couple of examples?

guanophore
When a priest, deacon, or leader (teacher) or what not tries to expound anything that is different from the Apostolic Teaching, then they are not to be trusted. For example, if a German monk decides that he can spurn the authority that was appointed by Christ, he is out of order.

This is how the religious leaders at the time of Christ looked upon Christ also… They thought He was “out of order” to…

 

[justasking4]

I think it is important to consider how specific God was when he told Moses the instructions on how to build the Ark of the Covenant. It had to be perfect to hold the inspired word(Word?) of God. Why would the Ark of the New and Perfect Covenant have to be any less perfect…especially considering that if the contents the first Ark were the word of God inspired while the contents of the new Ark was the Word of God Himself in the flesh?!

Interesting point you bring up about how much detail the Scriptures give us about the construction etc of the ark. However, there is no such detail at all how Mary is supposedly an ark to.

 

[guanophore]

This is how the religious leaders at the time of Christ looked upon Christ also… They thought He was “out of order” to…

Yes. This is why it is so important to be aware of and in communion with the authority that Jesus appointed for the Church. It is His promise never to leave, and to guide into all truth upon which we must rely completely.

 

[Good_Fella]

A very interesting post Good Fella 3530640 (please feel free to correct me if I’ve removed too much context from around the selected quote).

True, our Blessed Mother Mary is the model par excellence of all virtues - obedience included, but I personally see her “Fiat” more in the light of consent to an invitation rather than obedience.

I’m also wrestling a little with the part about God ,"…would have chosen another maiden in her stead". I understand it in the sense that our salvation shouldn’t depend on the act of a human being, but the words themselves imply both that there might have been a second Immaculate Conception (which is a singular privilege) and that God didn’t know what he was doing when he moulded his own Mother; as Jeremiah 1:5 says:" Before I formed you in the womb I knew you."

Your thoughts?

“The very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521)

Jacob of Sarug sermonized that if any maiden were purer and holier than Mary, God would have chosen her instead. He means that Mary was the purest and holiest of Jewish maidens, that there was no creature purer and holier than her. And that’s why God selected her. Mary was constantly in the mind of God from all eternity. He knew when he fashioned Mary’s soul that she would respond to his will by freely cooperating with his grace. If it were not Mary, it would have been another Jewish maiden instead. For God chose that the Immaculate Conception be a means through which we are saved by Christ. The Almighty ordained that a human being cooperate with him on our behalf in our salvation, a woman who can serve as a model to the Church and mankind. Thus Mary was granted the singular privilege of being preserved free from original sin by God’s favour towards her. God chose Mary before she was ever conceived, and he could have chosen another maiden prior to her conception if she proved to be worthier than the mother of our Lord. But we know that Mary was the purest and holiest among Jewish maidens, since God had chosen her to be the mother of his Only-begotten Son.

From the beginning of the history of our salvation the chosen mother of our Lord and Saviour was Mary and could be only her, since God had already chosen her from all eternity. Because of God’s omniscience, it’s absolutely impossible that Mary could have refused to accept the privilege of divine maternity. Once we know the outcome of a story in a novel, by having read it the first time, we cannot expect the climax and the ending to be different the next time we read it again. Foreknowledge does not necessarily predetermine an event. So it’s a mistake to confuse God’s omniscience with predetermination. As an eternal and constant object of God’s thoughts, Mary could not have been other than faithful. Meanwhile she was free to choose or reject God’s will for her, just as Eve was; but Eve chose to disobey God by listening to the serpent. When we speak of Mary’s obedience, we do not mean that she was a bondslave or a puppet. We are presenting her as the antithesis of our ancestral biological parent who originally disobeyed God.

“And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” St. Irenaeus, ‘Against Heresies, 3:22’ ( A.D.180 )

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[NeedImprovement]

Thanks for clarifying for me Good Fella. We see things the same way, I just needed you to do an adjustment on my lenses for me.

Talk about eloquent…definitely going to do some reading on Jacob of Sarug (better late than never).