Could Mary have sinned?

[NotWorthy]

i didn’t say anything about this but its similar. A case can be made about these things in the catholic church is that they start out as speculations and in some cases become dogmas. We are already seeing this happening not only with Mary as an ark type but her being the spouse of the HS. We should not be suprised someday that to is declared dogma. There really is no stopping this kind of thing when you have a church that believes in some kind of development of doctrine over time.

In your estimation, this could be true. But in mine and the Church’s…No. Why, because the Holy Spirit was promised to Guide Us.

But not the NT though.

That’s funny! Where do you think these teachings were drawn from. The Scriptures and the Church’s Tradition.

Why should this be necessary? If the scriptures teach something then the church should teach it whether there is controversy or not.

When was the last time you discussed OSAS with different faiths.

Nice try, but it doesn’t cut it.

If these are the earlist mention of this your talking about something that took over 2 centuries to be mentioned. Secondly who is to say these men speak for the entire church and not their own personal views?

Well, they were what you specifically asked for, and yet they are not good enough?

We know that these are not “personal views” only because of the support and lack of controversy over these writings. These weren’t just found in a mason jar in the dead sea. They were quoted and supported by other Fathers writings.

This kind of thing reminds of the people who years ago were claiming there was some kind of codes in the Bible that meant certain things.
Do you know if modern day catholic scholars interpret the passages you quote as a reference to Mary and the ark?

---

Steve Ray, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn and numerous NUMEROUS others.

 

[NotWorthy]

The more you know and understand the Scriptures the greater you knowledge of Christ. No one will ever be complete in this world.

But numerous Protestants tell me (incorrectly) that Scripture makes one complete.

There are at least 2 Scriptures passages you need to believe to get to heaven:
Romans 10:9-10 and I Corinthians 15:1-4

I’ll get back to you on this.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

No so. I don’t have any blinders on. Rather you are reading into the texts your catholic doctrine and trying to make the scriptures say what they do not say.

Uh, justasking4it, I don’t know how to put this diplomatically, but,

The ‘Trinity’ is a Catholic Doctrine !

Gee, I hope I didn’t surprise you.

Robert

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3304726]

Quote:justasking4
If these are the earlist mention of this your talking about something that took over 2 centuries to be mentioned. Secondly who is to say these men speak for the entire church and not their own personal views?

NotWorthy
Well, they were what you specifically asked for, and yet they are not good enough?

My comment was meant to convey how far removed these things are from the actual event. What it shows is how much emblishment happens over time. Such is the case here.

NotWorthy
We know that these are not “personal views” only because of the support and lack of controversy over these writings. These weren’t just found in a mason jar in the dead sea. They were quoted and supported by other Fathers writings.

This still does not mean these men spoke for the entire church. For example we know the pope can speak for the entire Roman Catholic church at times because these things have been worked out over time. You can’t say that for a church father unless he was some kind of pope.

Quote:justasking4
This kind of thing reminds of the people who years ago were claiming there was some kind of codes in the Bible that meant certain things.
Do you know if modern day catholic scholars interpret the passages you quote as a reference to Mary and the ark?

---

NotWorthy
Steve Ray, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn and numerous NUMEROUS others.

Is Steve Ray and Jimmy Atkin scholars with creditinals in this field or are they lay apologists?

Has Scott Hahn’ work in this field been “peer reviewed” among other catholic scholars?

 

[justasking4]

Uh, justasking4it, I don’t know how to put this diplomatically, but,

The ‘Trinity’ is a Catholic Doctrine !

Gee, I hope I didn’t surprise you.

Robert

What does this have to do with “Could Mary have sinned?”

 

[NotWorthy]

My comment was meant to convey how far removed these things are from the actual event. What it shows is how much emblishment happens over time. Such is the case here.

You simply cannot make that claim. The Church goes nuts when people introduce new doctrines. That even you can attest to. But, the silence that is seen before these writings do not make the case that this was not taught. Too many writings have been lost and destroyed. Too many teachings were done orally.

And again, if a doctrine is new and unfounded, the Church goes absolutely nuts. You’ve seen this happen time and time again as there have been heresies in nearly every century since the Church’s times.

I think you’re being rather brash and haughty claiming that you know this isn’t true because it wasn’t taught earlier.

This still does not mean these men spoke for the entire church. For example we know the pope can speak for the entire Roman Catholic church at times because these things have been worked out over time. You can’t say that for a church father unless he was some kind of pope.

How are his writings received and reviewed by other Church leaders - remember, most of the Church Fathers are Bishops.

How do we know that the writings of St. Ignatius are a valuable insight into the early Church? Because numerous Church Fathers cite his writings in approval.

Other writings that have been found, but were never supported by other Fathers, have been treated for the wayward writings that they probably were.

Is Steve Ray and Jimmy Atkin scholars with creditinals in this field or are they lay apologists?

Has Scott Hahn’ work in this field been “peer reviewed” among other catholic scholars?

I don’t know. I understand that these guys are well-thought of throughout the Christian Communities, even if their views may go against the grain of Non-Catholic Christians, except of course, by singular groups.

The Presbyterian community, I understand, does not think too highly of Scott Hahn since he left their fold to return to the True Church (Cross the Tiber, so to speak).

 

[guanophore]

No so. I don’t have any blinders on. Rather you are reading into the texts your catholic doctrine and trying to make the scriptures say what they do not say.

If you can see that this can be done, can you try it? Just to walk a mile in our moccasins? I can get into the Mormon moccasins, and I can see why they read that Jesus and the HS are not God. I don’t agree, but I can see their point of view.

Then how can you say its a catholic teaching at all if it has never defined it as such. Without it you catholics who say such things are really speculating even beyond what the church says.

That is how we read the scriptures, ja4. How come you are allowed to interpret them for yourself, but others are not? When we read Luke, we see the parallels to the Ark. The Church allows this. Why can’t you? Why does it bother you so much if Catholics speculate? Can you not accept the things you cannot change, and go your way in peace? Why must you badger us about our beliefs? I am puzzled by your persistent hostility to all things Catholic?

Absolutely for a number of reasons. No writer of the NT ever makes this connection. Secondly, under this method i could just as easily make all kinds of connections from the OT to the NT about her also. Take for example Jeremiah 44:15-19 and apply to what catholics are doing with Mary. Thirdly, do any fathers of the 2-3rd centuries speak of her like this?

And people have! From the time of Jesus, and Paul, to the present, typologies have been made from the OT. Why does this bother you so much? Can’t you live and let live?

These are just some of the problems you have with this kind of method. Better to stay with the plain reading of Scripture and not make her out to be something the Scriptures never do.

ja4, at least take responsibility for your own problems, and don’t try to make them belong to someone else. ja4 has a problem with this, not Catholics! This is an example of what I was saying about you trying to make your problems belong to others.

 

[guanophore]

How many verses has your church infallibly interpreted? I was reading somewhere that it is less than 20. Less than 20 out of the thousands of verses in the Scriptures. Unless the verses we are discussing have been infallibly interpreted by your church then you are in the same boat as a protestant.

No, we are not, ja4, because we have an infallible teaching authority appointed by Jesus, and preserved without error by the HS. Therefore, we can read all the Scripture in the light of that infallible source, and be confident that we will not get off track.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
How many verses has your church infallibly interpreted? I was reading somewhere that it is less than 20. Less than 20 out of the thousands of verses in the Scriptures. Unless the verses we are discussing have been infallibly interpreted by your church then you are in the same boat as a protestant.

guanophore
No, we are not, ja4, because we have an infallible teaching authority appointed by Jesus, and preserved without error by the HS. Therefore, we can read all the Scripture in the light of that infallible source, and be confident that we will not get off track.

You can no more tell me with any certainty what a verse means that your church has not infallibly interpreted than any non catholic could. Your infallible interpreter is really not much help here. Thats just the way it is…

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3305359]
Originally Posted by justasking4
No so. I don’t have any blinders on. Rather you are reading into the texts your catholic doctrine and trying to make the scriptures say what they do not say.

guanophore
If you can see that this can be done, can you try it? Just to walk a mile in our moccasins? I can get into the Mormon moccasins, and I can see why they read that Jesus and the HS are not God. I don’t agree, but I can see their point of view.

i can and have done so and have shown repeatedly that the support for Mary being without sin cannot be supported by the scriptures. We both cannot be right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Then how can you say its a catholic teaching at all if it has never defined it as such. Without it you catholics who say such things are really speculating even beyond what the church says.

guanophore
That is how we read the scriptures, ja4. How come you are allowed to interpret them for yourself, but others are not?

I never said that catholics are not allowed to interpret. In fact you cannot get away from interpeting the moment you start to read. Protestants are continually mocked by various catholics for their “private interpretations” when catholics are guilty of the same thing.

guanophore
When we read Luke, we see the parallels to the Ark. The Church allows this. Why can’t you? Why does it bother you so much if Catholics speculate? Can you not accept the things you cannot change, and go your way in peace? Why must you badger us about our beliefs? I am puzzled by your persistent hostility to all things Catholic?

I take these forums as opportunity to discuss these matters among catholics. No one is forced to discuss and respond. There is so much to discuss that this is one of the best forums that i have found. I too have been challenged in a number of ways on these forums and its been an excellent way to grow in my understanding.

 

[Good_Fella]

No so. I don’t have any blinders on. Rather you are reading into the texts your catholic doctrine and trying to make the scriptures say what they do not say.

To accommodate your need for absolute explicitness, you’d have to find a verse that literally reads: “Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant” or “All have sinned save Jesus and Mary”. How can you be sure that the apostles never understood these truths or whether they never wrote something that wasn’t yet fully understood by them at the time, but pronounced by their co-Author, the Holy Spirit, to be fully understood by the Church in due time according to God’s will (Jn 16, 12-13)? You can’t be sure. Just as you can’t be sure the apostles fully realized that the Holy Spirit is God and there is a Holy Trinity, for they never explicitly wrote about these truths. Search the NT scriptures and you will not find a verse that reads: “The Holy Spirit is God” or “There are three Persons in one God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” These truths were solemnly defined and declared as dogma in the late fourth century in reaction to the heresies that sprung up, notably Arianism. You accept these Catholic Trinitarian teachings, but you reject the Church’s Marian teachings. Your proclivity to pick and choose what you personally wish to believe is the reason why Protestantism is a divided house. Take off your blinders.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;3305682]To accommodate your need for absolute explicitness, you’d have to find a verse that literally reads: “Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant” or “All have sinned save Jesus and Mary”.

Not so. I know what the scriptures say about these things that your church tries to claim they are found in Scripture. Trying to say that Mary never sinned because she was supposedly prevented from doing so is assertion without a fact.

How can you be sure that the apostles never understood these truths or whether they never wrote something that wasn’t yet fully understood by them at the time, but pronounced by their co-Author, the Holy Spirit, to be fully understood by the Church in due time according to God’s will (Jn 16, 12-13)?

All we have from the apostles are their writings. Because of this we are limited by what we can say is true. To go beyond what the Scriptures say is to speculate and that is what the catholic church does when it says she was without.

You can’t be sure. Just as you can’t be sure the apostles fully realized that the Holy Spirit is God and there is a Holy Trinity, for they never explicitly wrote about these truths.

They may not have written about these things in a systmatic theological way but we do know how to interpret their writings in context. We do in fact have a very good idea what they believed about these things.

Search the NT scriptures and you will not find a verse that reads: “The Holy Spirit is God” or “There are three Persons in one God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” These truths were solemnly defined and declared as dogma in the late fourth century in reaction to the heresies that sprung up, notably Arianism.

And were not the Scrptures themselves used as the foundation to refute these heresies?

You accept these Catholic Trinitarian teachings, but you reject the Church’s Marian teachings. Your proclivity to pick and choose what you personally wish to believe is the reason why Protestantism is a divided house.

I don’t start off with the premise that i beleive many catholics do i.e. that the church cannot err in matters of faith and morals. Rather i look for the support for these doctrines in the scriptures. Do the apostles teach she never sinned? Do they teach she was immaculately concieved? If anyone would know it would be the apostles. I would suspect Luke or John who probably knew her best never mention such a thing about her. This in itself should tell you that such a belief about her was totally unknown in the
1st century. To continue to say so is to believe in speculations which have no basis in Scripture.

Take off your blinders.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[NotWorthy]

Not so. I know what the scriptures say about these things that your church tries to claim they are found in Scripture. Trying to say that Mary never sinned because she was supposedly prevented from doing so is assertion without a fact.

It’s also a false representation of what the Church teaches.

Mary was NOT prevented from sinning.

She CHOSE not to.

 

[NotWorthy]

All we have from the apostles are their writings. Because of this we are limited by what we can say is true. To go beyond what the Scriptures say is to speculate and that is what the catholic church does when it says she was without.

This, too, is false. The Church has the full authority to make this statement, unless the Scriptures deny it.

 

[NotWorthy]

They may not have written about these things in a systmatic theological way but we do know how to interpret their writings in context. We do in fact have a very good idea what they believed about these things.

Yes, the Didache sheds an immense light on what the Apostles taught. Do you use it for research on the early Church?

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t start off with the premise that i beleive many catholics do i.e. that the church cannot err in matters of faith and morals. Rather i look for the support for these doctrines in the scriptures. Do the apostles teach she never sinned? Do they teach she was immaculately concieved? If anyone would know it would be the apostles. I would suspect Luke or John who probably knew her best never mention such a thing about her. This in itself should tell you that such a belief about her was totally unknown in the 1st century. To continue to say so is to believe in speculations which have no basis in Scripture.

So, you believe in all the writings of the Early Church Fathers up to what point in time. How many centuries to you go in silence before you say, “This can’t be what the Apostles taught”.

You seem to accept the first centuries documents written by the Church Fathers as proof of Apostolic Tradition, in general, but you tend to deny the very teachings that these documents teach.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Not so. I know what the scriptures say about these things that your church tries to claim they are found in Scripture. Trying to say that Mary never sinned because she was supposedly prevented from doing so is assertion without a fact.

NotWorthy

It’s also a false representation of what the Church teaches.

Mary was NOT prevented from sinning.

She CHOSE not to.

Then i must be mistaken. I could have sworn i had heard from one of the best catholic apologist that he used an anaolgy that she was somehow “saved” from sinning like a person who is about to walk in a mud puddle but is prevented from doing so. I must have heard wrong then.

Where does your church say she “chose” not to sin?

 

[NotWorthy]

Then i must be mistaken. I could have sworn i had heard from one of the best catholic apologist that he used an anaolgy that she was somehow “saved” from sinning like a person who is about to walk in a mud puddle but is prevented from doing so. I must have heard wrong then.

Where does your church say she “chose” not to sin?

Yes, she was saved from sin in the analogy that you used. But that “saved” is from the stain of Original Sin and the Concupiscence that comes with it. We humans are typically born already stained by the puddle, and Baptism washes the muddy water off of us. We still suffer from the tendency to want to sin, which is called Concupiscence.

The Holy Spirit did not prevent Mary from sinning on her own. That’s “puppetology”.

Where does my Church say she chose not to sin? When it says she remained sinless. It nowhere implies that she was prevented from sinning on her own.

 

[justasking4]

Yes, she was saved from sin in the analogy that you used. But that “saved” is from the stain of Original Sin and the Concupiscence that comes with it. We humans are typically born already stained by the puddle, and Baptism washes the muddy water off of us. We still suffer from the tendency to want to sin, which is called Concupiscence.

The Holy Spirit did not prevent Mary from sinning on her own. That’s “puppetology”.

Where does my Church say she chose not to sin? When it says she remained sinless. It nowhere implies that she was prevented from sinning on her own.

Thanks for your answer. Would this be part of Sacred Tradition since its not in scripture?

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks for your answer. Would this be part of Sacred Tradition since its not in scripture?

I wasn’t aware that it wasn’t in Scripture.

It’s not versed, but it’s there, just as the Trinity is there, even though it’s not versed.

BTW, If the Holy Spirit prevented Mary from sinning (again, “Puppetology”), then there would be no reason to venerate her as We Catholics so lovingly do.