Can Mary be Sinless and Intercede for you?

[rinnie]

ccc 411 quote: Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from the stain of orifinal sin and by a special Grace of God commited no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life. unquote.

 

[rinnie]

also Mary’s exemption from actual sin is confirmed by the Council of Trent (sess. VI., can.23) If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God let him be anathema. Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable not by perfection of her nature, but by a special Divine Privilege.

 

[GailMac]

Psalm 138

1 Unto the end, a psalm of David.

Lord, thou hast proved me, and known me:
2 Thou hast known my sitting down, and my rising up.
3 Thou hast understood my thoughts afar off: my path and my line thou hast searched out.
4 And thou hast foreseen all my ways: for there is no speech in my tongue.
5 Behold, O Lord, thou hast known all things, the last and those of old: thou hast formed me, and hast laid thy hand upon me.
6 Thy knowledge is become wonderful to me: it is high, and I cannot reach to it.
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy face?
8 If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present.
9 If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea:
10 Even there also shall thy hand lead me: and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 And I said: Perhaps darkness shall cover me: and night shall be my light in my pleasures.
12 But darkness shall not be dark to thee, and night shall be light all the day: the darkness thereof, and the light thereof are alike to thee.
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast protected me from my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise thee, for thou art fearfully magnified: wonderful are thy works, and my soul knoweth right well.
15 My bone is not hidden from thee, which thou hast made in secret: and my substance in the lower parts of the earth.
16 Thy eyes did see my imperfect being, and in thy book all shall be written: days shall be formed, and no one in them.
17 But to me thy friends, O God, are made exceedingly honourable: their principality is exceedingly strengthened.
18 I will number them, and they shall be multiplied above the sand, I rose up and am still with thee.
19 If thou wilt kill the wicked, O God: ye men of blood, depart from me:
20 Because you say in thought: They shall receive thy cities in vain.
21 Have I not hated them, O Lord, that hated thee: and pined away because of thy enemies?
22 I have hated them with a perfect hatred: and they are become enemies to me.
23 Prove me, O God, and know my heart: examine me, and know my paths.
24 And see if there be in me the way of iniquity: and lead me in the eternal way.

newadvent.org/bible/psa138.htm

 

[GailMac]

Here’s another little bit of help: “Main Entry: her·e·tic
Pronunciation: \ˈher-ə-ˌtik, ˈhe-rə-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: a dissenter from established religious dogma ; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine : nonconformist”

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heretic

Peace,

Gail

 

[GailMac]

Then if you continue with heretical thinking, the next door you fall through is this one: "

Main Entry: apos·ta·sy
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpäs-tə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural apos·ta·sies
Etymology: Middle English apostasie, from Late Latin apostasia, from Greek, literally, revolt, from aphistasthai to revolt, from apo- + histasthai to stand — more at stand
Date: 14th century
1 : renunciation of a religious faith
2 : abandonment of a previous loyalty : defection"

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apostasy

By that time your get so sickened by your heretical thinking that you don’t want any more religion, then you get a little atheistic…or you can give it up and admit the Church has got it right, had it right and will continue to have it right…

Peace,

Gail

 

[GailMac]

P.S. Sin has its consequences and treating Mary, God’s Mother as if she’s someone you can kick around and remain Christian…well, I think if you take an honest look at how twisted your thinking gets after doing so, you’ll agree. Keep in mind that God has provided a Way back from the places your sins take you. It is found in the Sacrament of Mercy in the Confessional. We’ll still be around when you decide. Until then, may God bless you and yours.

Peace,

Gail

 

[justasking4]

also Mary’s exemption from actual sin is confirmed by the Council of Trent (sess. VI., can.23) If any one say that man once justified can during his whole life avoid all sins even venial ones, as the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin did by special privilege of God let him be anathema. Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable not by perfection of her nature, but by a special Divine Privilege.

Since the NT are the only documents we have that speaks of Mary and these books never mention her being exempted from sin where did Trent base its conclusions on since the Scriptures never speak of her in this way? How does Trent get around circumventing the Scriptures which boldly declare all men are sinners? To claim she was spared being a sinner by “a special Divine Privilege” is not a fact if there is nothing to support the claim. There is nothing in Scripture to support this declaration.

 

[happilycatholic]

P.S. Sin has its consequences and treating Mary, God’s Mother as if she’s someone you can kick around and remain Christian…well, I think if you take an honest look at how twisted your thinking gets after doing so, you’ll agree. Keep in mind that God has provided a Way back from the places your sins take you. It is found in the Sacrament of Mercy in the Confessional. We’ll still be around when you decide. Until then, may God bless you and yours.

Peace,

Gail

Exactly right GailMac. That’s why I posted the following on another thread and got absolutely no reply from those who “kick Mary around” on this forum:

I just have a very basic observation I’d like to place out there.

If the definition of intercede is: to act between parties with a view to reconciling differences.

And if God sent His Only Begotten Son to reconcile us with God’s Will so that we could be with Him in Heaven, then doesn’t it make sense that God chose Mary to act between Him and us to bring our Savior to us with a view to Jesus being our reconciliation?

And if that is true, then why am I to believe that Mary was only to intercede for us once and then it would be idolatry and/or worship to ask her to intercede for us now?

I’m not trying to start a riot. I just really want to know how some folks can love the Lord and have such disdain for His Mother.

I would like those who have said that Mary is equal to an unwed Mother and an Idol and that she is “just a vessel and only human” to get on your knees and call on your Lord and say exactly what you’ve written in your posts here directly to Him in prayer. Can you do that?

---

It’s a simple test, is it not? If you won’t pray it, then you shouldn’t say it.

 

[po18guy]

Since the NT are the only documents we have…

What do you mean “We”??? Catholics have the movie of Christ. Bible Christians have just the trailer.

Since SS is not taught by the bible, why do so many abide by that which is not taught in the written word of God? They must add to the bible, because it is incomplete without Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Since the NT are the only documents we have…

po18guy
What do you mean “We”??? Catholics have the movie of Christ. Bible Christians have just the trailer.

Since SS is not taught by the bible, why do so many abide by that which is not taught in the written word of God? They must add to the bible, because it is incomplete without Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

Let’s assume you are right. What other documents do you have that tells us about Mary? Who wrote them and when?

 

[Gamera]

Let’s assume you are right. What other documents do you have that tells us about Mary? Who wrote them and when?

The Protoevangelium of James, circa 150 AD.

 

[justasking4]

adstrinity,

People aren’t as easy to convince as you seem to think. You need to work a little harder:

Just to be clear, MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD IS 100% IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED, FREE FROM ALL SIN, PERFECT. MARY IS PERFECT AND SHE HAS BEEN HER ENTIRE LIFE.

If Mary is as you claim here i.e. free from all sin, then how do you explain as some have stated that the woman of Revelations 12:1-5 is Mary because she is the one who gave birth to a male child (verse 5) and this birth was also in “great pain” in labor. Now part of the effects of sin is pain in childbirth as we see Genesis 3:16.

Here is the problem with claiming Mary is sinless. If Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 and she had pain in childbirth in the birth of Jesus (verse 2) then this would mean she is a sinner. Part in child birth is the result of being fallen.

Do you believe that Mary is the woman of Revelation 12?

 

[rinnie]

Since the NT are the only documents we have that speaks of Mary and these books never mention her being exempted from sin where did Trent base its conclusions on since the Scriptures never speak of her in this way? How does Trent get around circumventing the Scriptures which boldly declare all men are sinners? To claim she was spared being a sinner by “a special Divine Privilege” is not a fact if there is nothing to support the claim. There is nothing in Scripture to support this declaration.

I read this somewhere and I must say I agree 100%,

Quote Those who demand faith in written scripture will not keep faith very long. Without Christ’s Church the reader loses the truth. unquote. We have the promise of the Church from Christ himself. The Church and Christ cannot be separated. They are one. It is through the Church we receive the teaching’s and it is through our Faith we believe. That is support enough for me.

 

[justasking4]

The Protoevangelium of James, circa 150 AD.

Since its written after the apostles its not of the apostles and is a work of fiction as the other Apocryphal Gospels are. These were condemned in the western church by Popes Damasus (382), Innocent I (405) and by the Decretum Gelasianum (496?).

Since this is the case would it be advisable to build a doctrine on works that have been rejected by the church?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Since the NT are the only documents we have that speaks of Mary and these books never mention her being exempted from sin where did Trent base its conclusions on since the Scriptures never speak of her in this way? How does Trent get around circumventing the Scriptures which boldly declare all men are sinners? To claim she was spared being a sinner by “a special Divine Privilege” is not a fact if there is nothing to support the claim. There is nothing in Scripture to support this declaration.

rinnie
I read this somewhere and I must say I agree 100%,

Quote Those who demand faith in written scripture will not keep faith very long. Without Christ’s Church the reader loses the truth. unquote. We have the promise of the Church from Christ himself. The Church and Christ cannot be separated. They are one. It is through the Church we receive the teaching’s and it is through our Faith we believe. That is support enough for me.

Do you believe that everything the Catholic church has ever taught has been without error?

 

[Gamera]

Since its written after the apostles its not of the apostles and is a work of fiction as the other Apocryphal Gospels are. These were condemned in the western church by Popes Damasus (382), Innocent I (405) and by the Decretum Gelasianum (496?).

Since this is the case would it be advisable to build a doctrine on works that have been rejected by the church?

Wait. Wait. Wait.

1. You said the New Testament books are “the only books we have” that mention Mary. The Protoevangelium of James mentions Mary. Therefore the New Testament books are not “the only books we have” which mention Mary.
2. I never said the Protoevangelium of James was inspired. I know the Catholic Church determined it is not inspired. Just because a writing is not inspired does not make it “fiction.”
3. I never said we should “build a doctrine” on the Protoevangelium of James. Please don’t put words in my mouth. All I did was to correct a misstatement of fact which you made, that Mary is mentioned “only” in the New Testament.

 

[justasking4]

happilycatholic;4338398]Exactly right GailMac. That’s why I posted the following on another thread and got absolutely no reply from those who “kick Mary around” on this forum:

I just have a very basic observation I’d like to place out there.

If the definition of intercede is: to act between parties with a view to reconciling differences.

And if God sent His Only Begotten Son to reconcile us with God’s Will so that we could be with Him in Heaven, then doesn’t it make sense that God chose Mary to act between Him and us to bring our Savior to us with a view to Jesus being our reconciliation?

No. There is no place in the NT where it is said we need someone between us and Christ. We have direct access to Him. Ephesians 3:11-12 is a good place to look in our relationship with Him— 11 This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,
12 **in whom we have boldness and confident access **through faith in Him.

Hebrews 4:14-16-- 14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Couple this with Jesus command to ask in His name and we are taught by the Scriptures that we do have direct access to Him. We do not need Mary or any saint to act as some kind of middle man.

And if that is true, then why am I to believe that Mary was only to intercede for us once and then it would be idolatry and/or worship to ask her to intercede for us now?

For the mere fact the Scriptures always direct us directly to God. Never are we to pray to a person who has died.

I’m not trying to start a riot. I just really want to know how some folks can love the Lord and have such disdain for His Mother.

Its not disdain but what is the truth. If the Scriptures don’t command it or teach it we should not do it. We know without a doubt that Christ alone is our Great High Priest Who intercedes for us. There is no other way.

I would like those who have said that Mary is equal to an unwed Mother and an Idol and that she is “just a vessel and only human” to get on your knees and call on your Lord and say exactly what you’ve written in your posts here directly to Him in prayer. Can you do that?

---

Who said Mary is equal to an unwed mother? It is true though that she was just a vessel used by God to accomplish His purposes. There is nothing inherent in Mary herself that makes her any different than anyone else. She to was in need of salvation in Christ.

It’s a simple test, is it not? If you won’t pray it, then you shouldn’t say it.

 

[Gamera]

If the Scriptures don’t command it or teach it we should not do it.

So since the Scriptures do not command or teach this, we should not do it.

 

[justasking4]

Gamera;4338647]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Since its written after the apostles its not of the apostles and is a work of fiction as the other Apocryphal Gospels are. These were condemned in the western church by Popes Damasus (382), Innocent I (405) and by the Decretum Gelasianum (496?).

Since this is the case would it be advisable to build a doctrine on works that have been rejected by the church?

Gamera
Wait. Wait. Wait.

1. You said the New Testament books are “the only books we have” that mention Mary. The Protoevangelium of James mentions Mary. Therefore the New Testament books are not “the only books we have” which mention Mary.

i should have been more specific. The only reliable information we have on Mary is found only in the NT. These other works are of dubious worth.

1. I never said the Protoevangelium of James was inspired. I know the Catholic Church determined it is not inspired. Just because a writing is not inspired does not make it “fiction.”

If i’m not mistaken the church considers them a kind of fiction as do Catholic scholars.

1. I never said we should “build a doctrine” on the Protoevangelium of James. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

I never said you said this. Rather i asked is it a good thing to build a doctrine on something that has been rejected by the church?

All I did was to correct a misstatement of fact which you made, that Mary is mentioned “only” in the New Testament.

Hopefully this is cleared up from my first comment.

 

[justasking4]

So since the Scriptures do not command or teach this, we should not do it.

Yes