Could Mary have sinned?

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Rather it is those who go beyond the Scriptures that fall into error.

graceandglory
In YOUR opinion.
And according to the extra-biblical tradition that you espouse.

Then show me in the Scriptures where it explicitedly says she never sinned?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
For doctrines to develop properly and reflect the will of Christ they must be truly and explicitedly grounded in the Scriptures. Unless this principle is adhered to anything could be said to be a doctrine under the guise its “implicit”.

NotWorthy
So how did you get the doctrine of the Trinity?

There is no explicit teaching of the Trinity in the New Testament that I know of.

Are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit spoken of as God in the Scriptures?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3310616]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Being full of grace does not mean she was incapable of sinning. Look up the meaning of this word in a greek lexicon will show you this.

guanophore;
You are exactly right, whichis why you have been told several times that representing Catholic thought this way is deceptive.

You accuse me of misrepresenting catholics. Notice the article from this site on this issue. I quote:

“When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.
The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.”

These paragraphs goes far beyond the greek definition of the word you will find in a greek lexicon and makes it appear to support catholic doctrine. This is disingenuous.

Catholicism does not teach that she was incapable of sinning, but that she was born free of original sin,and that she CHOSE not ot sin, just as Eve, who was also born without origninal sin, might have done.

You can make these kinds of statements but you cannot find one shred of support from the scriptures for it.

 

[guanophore]

Then please enlighten me with the family history. To claim because “we don’t see this reaction, as we do against new doctrines that emerged” does not tell us anything. Who is the first recorded father who claimed Mary did not sin ever? I would think you could answer this since it seems to me that you are familar with your family history.

Actually, it tells it all, ja4. We see that the Fathers react vociferously when new (heretical) doctrines are introduced, and we don’t see this happening about the Marian dogmas. I know you have already been given the wrtings of the fathers on Mary, so I will pass on that one. However, I re-iterate my challenge that you take this arguement to the Orthodox. You will find that they have no love lost on Rome, and that they hold the same teachings that they received from the Apostles. It is not a “Roman speculation” as you seem to think.

Then show me in the Scriptures where it explicitedly says she never sinned?

Show me where it does?

The truth is that most of the NT was written during her lifetime, and the topics written about there are not the one’s that you want to read about, I guess.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3310823]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Then please enlighten me with the family history. To claim because “we don’t see this reaction, as we do against new doctrines that emerged” does not tell us anything. Who is the first recorded father who claimed Mary did not sin ever? I would think you could answer this since it seems to me that you are familar with your family history.

guanophore
Actually, it tells it all, ja4. We see that the Fathers react vociferously when new (heretical) doctrines are introduced, and we don’t see this happening about the Marian dogmas. I know you have already been given the wrtings of the fathers on Mary, so I will pass on that one. However, I re-iterate my challenge that you take this arguement to the Orthodox. You will find that they have no love lost on Rome, and that they hold the same teachings that they received from the Apostles. It is not a “Roman speculation” as you seem to think.

I’m confused by yours and others who use the fathers to support their position. Let me ask you, perhaps you can help clear up my confusion:
How do you know any father spoke for the entire church on a given issue in the first 3 centuries?
I’m thinking that the church itself was spread out over a large area and had thousands if not millions of memebers by the 3rd century. Secondly, there must have been hundreds of churches all over the empire and that were loosely associated with each other because of persecution issues and communication.
So how could it be said that these few men i.e. fathers could be said to speak for the entire church?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Then show me in the Scriptures where it explicitedly says she never sinned?

guanophore
Show me where it does?

One place is Romans 5:12, her admittance of the need for a Savior, Jesus never says she was without sin and that she died.

The truth is that most of the NT was written during her lifetime, and the topics written about there are not the one’s that you want to read about, I guess.

Thats all the more we should see these writings telling us she was without sin. They knew her best but say nothing about this.

---

Actually, it tells it all, ja4. We see that the Fathers react vociferously when new (heretical) doctrines are introduced, and we don’t see this happening about the Marian dogmas. I know you have already been given the wrtings of the fathers on Mary, so I will pass on that one. However, I re-iterate my challenge that you take this arguement to the Orthodox. You will find that they have no love lost on Rome, and that they hold the same teachings that they received from the Apostles. It is not a “Roman speculation” as you seem to think.

What early father said that she was without sin all her life? I remember reading somewhere that there were some fathers who did think she sinned. If that is the case, then what? What father would you believe?

 

[guanophore]

One place is Romans 5:12, her admittance of the need for a Savior, Jesus never says she was without sin and that she died.

Thats all the more we should see these writings telling us she was without sin. They knew her best but say nothing about this.

You say things like this because you reject the Divine Deposit of faith that is not within the Holy Writings. Mary needed a saviour. Jesus saved her at the moment of her conception, because He had a plan for her life, before the foundation of all time. I don’t know what all Jesus said and did with regard to Mary, because most of what he said and did is not in the scriptures. You are taking rom 5:12 out of context. You will not even accept Jesus’ own testimony that there are righteous people!

I am curious, though, who do you think that woman was who appeared to Bernadette at Loures, and said “I am the immaculate conception”?

What early father said that she was without sin all her life? I remember reading somewhere that there were some fathers who did think she sinned. If that is the case, then what? What father would you believe?

The ones who are in agreement with the Teachings of the Church. You have already been given these references many times, so I will not repeat them here. Clearly you do not accept the Catholic teaching, which is your perogative. Would you consider giving Catholics permission to have beliefs different than yours?

a fallible human being and can make errors. It would not suprise me he probably already has. Same applies to the catholic church. It is made up of fallible humans who and do err.

You say things like this because you do not discern the difference between the Holy and Infallible Bride of Christ, of whom He is the Head, that He has purified by washing of the water, and the word, and the fallible humans who are members of her. Such an inability speaks to a person who has never been born again, since those who are not born again cannot see the Kingdom.

 

[NotWorthy]

Are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit spoken of as God in the Scriptures?

Doesn’t Jesus say, “Why do you call me good? Don’t you know that only God is good”? (paraphrasing)

Doesn’t Jesus say, “Only the Father knows when this (the end of times) will come”. (paraphrasing)

This would make the Trinity a little more difficult to see. That’s why it took nearly 4 centuries for the Church to hammer this out.

So, to ask again, where does it “explicitly” say (these are your rules, mind you, not mine) that there is a Trinity. If it doesn’t say it explicitly, then it is non-biblical (according to your rules).

 

[guanophore]

You accuse me of misrepresenting catholics. Notice the article from this site on this issue. I quote:

“When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.
The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.”

These paragraphs goes far beyond the greek definition of the word you will find in a greek lexicon and makes it appear to support catholic doctrine. This is disingenuous.

On the contrary! This is THE genuine Catholic doctrine. This is how the Church, who produced that scripture, understands it’s meaning. I said you were misrepresenting because you claimed she was prevented from sinning. God’s grace, by itself, does not prevent sin. When He pours out His grace, and we cooperate with that grace(like Mary did) we can be prevented from sin.

You can make these kinds of statements but you cannot find one shred of support from the scriptures for it.

Well you just cited some shreds above! You may not agree with the interpretation, and that is your perogative, but why must you berate me because I do? Why badger the children of God because they have different beliefs than you? Or, do you deny that Catholics are Christians? Does your self appointed right to tear at others emanate from your belief that we are not members of the Body, and therefore, it is right for you to tear at us?

 

[graceandglory]

Then show me in the Scriptures where it explicitedly says she never sinned?

Show me in Scripture where it says I have to prove it by Scripture only. :bible1:

You can’t. :nope:That is your tradition. Your “Sola Scriptura” is your tradition. It’s very limiting. That is another reason why we say Catholics have the FULLNESS of the faith. Protestants have only “partial truth.”

 

[graceandglory]

Actually the protestant church is truer to the Scriptures than the Roman Catholic church is in structure, practice and doctrines.

Absolutely, unequivocally false.

Tell me about your Church’s faithfulness to the Eucharist being Christ’s Body and Blood that we are commanded to eat and drink, according to John 6? Or are you like those people who heard Jesus speak of this in and turned away from following Him?

Tell me about your church’s “Church Discipline” and excommunication process.

Tell me about the ladies who cover their heads during worship services at your church.

The Bible honors celibacy and singleness as a vocation. Where do singles fit in at your church, and do tell me about your celibate priesthood.

Where do you keep your apostolic letters? Tell me about your apostolic succession.

I wish I had more time to go on, but I must log off. I might come back to add scriptural references to this post.

 

[Joero]

Absolutely, unequivocally false.

Tell me about your Church’s faithfulness to the Eucharist being Christ’s Body and Blood that we are commanded to eat and drink, according to John 6? Or are you like those people who heard Jesus speak of this in and turned away from following Him?

Tell me about your church’s “Church Discipline” and excommunication process.

Tell me about the ladies who cover their heads during worship services at your church.

The Bible honors celibacy and singleness as a vocation. Where do singles fit in at your church, and do tell me about your celibate priesthood.

Where do you keep your apostolic letters? Tell me about your apostolic succession.

I wish I had more time to go on, but I must log off. I might come back to add scriptural references to this post.

I seconded!

 

[Good_Fella]

If what you say is true here i.e. “Scripture was interpreted by the Magisterium in light of apostolic Tradition” then your own church has failed to abide by this principle for the mere fact the apostles never taught she was without sin.

Depends what you mean by apostolic Tradition. If you mean the scriptures themselves as the apostolic Tradition then i agree. If something besides the scriptures then you have a problem.

Actually the protestant church is truer to the Scriptures than the Roman Catholic church is in structure, practice and doctrines.

I don’t know how you can say i’m speculating about Mary being a sinner when the Scriptures are clear that all men are sinners. Take your statement–“Mary chose not to sin.” has no basis in Scripture. There is not one verse that comes even close to saying this. To say that she chose not to sin is to speculate.

Luke believed Mary was without sin. He expressed his understanding of this fact by drawing a parallel between Mary and the incorrupt Ark and by quoting the words of the angel Gabriel: “Hail, full of grace.” The expression “full of grace” is used as an appellation in place of the Virgin Mary’s name. Luke is identifying Mary with a constant and enduring state of grace. Someone who personifies the state of being in actual perpetual grace cannot sin at the same time. Unlike Eve, Mary never fell from God’s grace in her association with the New Adam. In Mary’s own words: “My soul does magnify the Lord,” Luke confirms what his church understood at the time about the “mother of our Lord”: She was without sin. Her soul was untainted by original sin and full of sanctifying grace, putting her at complete emnity with Satan and his seed. The early Church Fathers, apostles by valid succession, picked up Luke’s theme and carried it further in their teachings as early as the second century. This is what I mean by Apostolic Tradition.

If the Protestant “church” were true to Scripture, there wouldn’t be Protestant “churches”. The Holy Spirit is not active where there is a disunity of faith. Paul tells the Ephesians this (1:4-6). Jesus sent the Paraclete for the sake of unity. We find a unity of faith only in the One Apostolic Catholic Church. The mark of unity is a sign that the Holy Spirit is with us in the formulation of doctrine. Where the Holy Spirit is absent, Scripture cannot be interpreted right. And it is by the Holy Spirit that the Sacred and Universal Magisterium is led in all truth. Church doctrine is not established by the fallible and private speculations of theologians, although the latter do assist the Magisterium in the development of doctrines over time - all within the providence of the Holy Spirit. At any rate, the Protestant concepts ‘sola scriptura’, ‘sola fide’, ‘sola gratia’, ‘sola Christo’, and Predestination are uncscriptural, because these false doctrines are the result of the private speculations of fallible men, who were left unaided by the Holy Spirit, having separated themselves from the historic Christian faith and the One true Catholic Church founded and built by Christ.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Old_Scholar]

Luke believed Mary was without sin. He expressed his understanding of this fact by drawing a parallel between Mary and the incorrupt Ark and by quoting the words of the angel Gabriel: “Hail, full of grace.” The expression “full of grace” is used as an appellation in place of the Virgin Mary’s name. Luke is identifying Mary with a constant and enduring state of grace. Someone who personifies the state of being in actual perpetual grace cannot sin at the same time. Unlike Eve, Mary never fell from God’s grace in her association with the New Adam. In Mary’s own words: “My soul does magnify the Lord,” Luke confirms what his church understood at the time about the “mother of our Lord”: She was without sin. Her soul was untainted by original sin and full of sanctifying grace, putting her at complete emnity with Satan and his seed. The early Church Fathers, apostles by valid succession, picked up Luke’s theme and carried it further in their teachings as early as the second century. This is what I mean by Apostolic Tradition.

If the Protestant “church” were true to Scripture, there wouldn’t be Protestant “churches”. The Holy Spirit is not active where there is a disunity of faith. Paul tells the Ephesians this (1:4-6). Jesus sent the Paraclete for the sake of unity. We find a unity of faith only in the One Apostolic Catholic Church. The mark of unity is a sign that the Holy Spirit is with us in the formulation of doctrine. Where the Holy Spirit is absent, Scripture cannot be interpreted right. And it is by the Holy Spirit that the Sacred and Universal Magisterium is led in all truth. Church doctrine is not established by the fallible and private speculations of theologians, although the latter do assist the Magisterium in the development of doctrines over time - all within the providence of the Holy Spirit. At any rate, the Protestant concepts ‘sola scriptura’, ‘sola fide’, ‘sola gratia’, ‘sola Christo’, and Predestination are uncscriptural, because these false doctrines are the result of the private speculations of fallible men, who were left unaided by the Holy Spirit, having separated themselves from the historic Christian faith and the One true Catholic Church founded and built by Christ.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

That all sounds good but is merely speculation. Can you provide the Scripture that tells us that? Since you say Luke said it?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Show me in Scripture where it says I have to prove it by Scripture only. :bible1:

You can’t. :nope:That is your tradition. Your “Sola Scriptura” is your tradition. It’s very limiting. That is another reason why we say Catholics have the FULLNESS of the faith. Protestants have only “partial truth.”

Then if you can’t prove it by Scripture, then surely you can prove it some other way. Give us some quotes of church fathers who made the statements. Just don’t give us some one’s ideas or speculations or “I thinks” or “maybes.”

 

[NotWorthy]

That all sounds good but is merely speculation. Can you provide the Scripture that tells us that? Since you say Luke said it?

, May the Circle, Be unbroken…

Welcome back, OS. Glad you can make us go round in circles on this topic yet again!!!

 

[guanophore]

Absolutely, unequivocally false.

Tell me about your Church’s faithfulness to the Eucharist being Christ’s Body and Blood that we are commanded to eat and drink, according to John 6? Or are you like those people who heard Jesus speak of this in and turned away from following Him?

Tell me about your church’s “Church Discipline” and excommunication process.

Tell me about the ladies who cover their heads during worship services at your church.

The Bible honors celibacy and singleness as a vocation. Where do singles fit in at your church, and do tell me about your celibate priesthood.

Where do you keep your apostolic letters? Tell me about your apostolic succession.

I wish I had more time to go on, but I must log off. I might come back to add scriptural references to this post.

No, don’t encourage him to derail the thread. It is one of his tactics for avoiding the truth that is being presented. If he wants to argue that point, he should start a new thread. We all need to help each other not to feed into his negativity.

 

[guanophore]

That all sounds good but is merely speculation. Can you provide the Scripture that tells us that? Since you say Luke said it?

Do you think that Mary could have sinned?

 

[Old_Scholar]

, May the Circle, Be unbroken…

Welcome back, OS. Glad you can make us go round in circles on this topic yet again!!!

Then I take it that’s a No!.. Not that I expected anything else. If you can’t do it, you just can’t do it. But that seems to be the norm here. Just wistful hope and thinking.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Do you think that Mary could have sinned?

**Absolutely…the Bible tells us “all” have sinned and that includes Mary and everyone else. **

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Now it’s pretty hard to misinterpret these verses. We are told that everyone needs salvation. Jesus is the only one perfect, without sin and unblemished. To believe otherwise is to not believe the Bible…

 

[graceandglory]

Then if you can’t prove it by Scripture, then surely you can prove it some other way. Give us some quotes of church fathers who made the statements. Just don’t give us some one’s ideas or speculations or “I thinks” or “maybes.”

Read through many of the #668 posts before yours.
Also, IF you are sincerely interested in Catholic teachings on Mary, do read this book:

Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God by Scott Hahn
amazon.com/Hail-Holy-Queen-Mother-Word/dp/0385501692/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202917024&sr=8-1

Most Christians know that the life of Jesus is foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament. Through a close examination of the Bible, as well as the work of both Catholic and Protestant scholars and clergy, Hahn brings to light the small but significant details showing that just as Jesus is the “New Adam,” so Mary is the “New Eve.” He unveils the Marian mystery at the heart of the Book of Revelation and reveals how it is foretold in the very first pages of the Book of Genesis and in the story of King David’s monarchy, which speaks of a privileged place for the mother of the king.

Building on these scriptural and historical foundations, Hahn presents a new look at the Marian doctrines: Her Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, and Coronation. As he guides modern-day readers through passages filled with mysteries and poetry, Hahn helps them rediscover the ancient art and science of reading the Scriptures and gain a more profound understanding of their truthfulness and relevance to faith and the practice of religion in the contemporary world.

(Quotation from Amazon.com book review)

Scott Hahn will definitely be more scholarly than we can be in the forums. He has done the research and has all the scriptural references to back up the Church’s claims. He is EXTREMELY faithful to Scripture. Although he can be on the punny side.