Could Mary have sinned?

[Jzyehoshua]

Been there and done that …you’d know that if you read My Testimony.

Alright. I’m reading it. I’d agree with you that the gifts did not end with the Acts Church.

I’ll admit I attend a Baptist church… but I’ll also admit I’ve met some pretty bad Baptists myself. Like any denomination there’s a risk for legalism among the fundamentalists and among the charismatics a risk for faked worship.

I’ve seen leaders in a Conservative Baptist church who manipulated the Scriptures to avoid not only what the Bible said but their own church constitution clearly said. And when it’s Christians you trust, the wounds are the deepest.

I can’t help but respect that what you believe comes from conviction. I personally believe in challenging truth and not blindly believing what’s told. I believe in self-examination and being completely honest and sincere with others.

I have seen that religion and legalism can occur in any denomination. I’ll admit I get a bit defensive in settings like this but I try to keep aware of my faults and not to just write off what others are saying because I disagree with them, although when they attack my character I’ll admit it’s hard to do.

At any rate, I’m not going to fault you for reaching the conclusions you did. People being legalistically cruel and unforgiving are about as bad as they come, and it’s hard not to feel wary ever after.

 

[Church_Militant]

Well, That’s not the real reason I reverted…Y’see when that dude alleged that we Catholics worship Mary, I meant what I said. If I discovered that what he said was true then I’d be outta there like a shot.

My first commitment is to the truth regardless of where it leads me, but I have found that in researching the allegations that n-Cs/a-Cs make against my Catholic faith that they generally are repeating craziness that they have heard or read, and have never really even looked into what the Catholic faith is.

Frankly, getting info about Catholicism from most n-Cs is about like getting info on rocket science from a garbage collector. You may get info…and it may even be well intentioned… but would you want to stake your life (eternal life in this case) on it? I sure wouldn’t.

My reasons for being Catholic are simple. The more I dig around in it the more convinced I become of it’s truth and certainty, so I don’t lose a lotta sleep over people expressing their disagreements.

I’ve had n-Cs tell me that we Catholics don’t read or know the Bible and that the Catholic Church ____________ (fill in the blank). The funny part is that in most cases I discover that the guys I’m talking to generally don’t know the Word of God as well as I do. That surprised me at first, but not anymore.

When it comes to morality and devout practice of the faith, I am of the opinion that one should always compare apples with apples and not oranges. IOW, compare the best of faithful n-Cs with the best of faithful Catholics, not the least common denominator. There are nitwits in every religion, and I don’t look to them for exemplary faith regardless of the religion.

Anyway… all I really meant about opposing the Holy Spirit is just to keep that in mind.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
(The peace of the Lord be with you always)
CM

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Well, That’s not the real reason I reverted…Y’see when that dude alleged that we Catholics worship Mary, I meant what I said. If I discovered that what he said was true then I’d be outta there like a shot.

My first commitment is to the truth regardless of where it leads me, but I have found that in researching the allegations that n-Cs/a-Cs make against my Catholic faith that they generally are repeating craziness that they have heard or read, and have never really even looked into what the Catholic faith is.

Frankly, getting info about Catholicism from most n-Cs is about like getting info on rocket science from a garbage collector. You may get info…and it may even be well intentioned… but would you want to stake your life (eternal life in this case) on it? I sure wouldn’t.

My reasons for being Catholic are simple. The more I dig around in it the more convinced I become of it’s truth and certainty, so I don’t lose a lotta sleep over people expressing their disagreements.

I’ve had n-Cs tell me that we Catholics don’t read or know the Bible and that the Catholic Church ____________ (fill in the blank). The funny part is that in most cases I discover that the guys I’m talking to generally don’t know the Word of God as well as I do. That surprised me at first, but not anymore.

When it comes to morality and devout practice of the faith, I am of the opinion that one should always compare apples with apples and not oranges. IOW, compare the best of faithful n-Cs with the best of faithful Catholics, not the least common denominator. There are nitwits in every religion, and I don’t look to them for exemplary faith regardless of the religion.

Anyway… all I really meant about opposing the Holy Spirit is just to keep that in mind.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
(The peace of the Lord be with you always)
CM

Well, I respect your choice because you’re clearly thinking it through and examining it for yourself. I’m not just taking for granted what everyone else is saying either though. I form my own opinions based on what I see the Bible teaching and upon a lot of thought on the subjects. Sometimes though, I think I might be too opinionated in stuff that can prove a distraction more than anything else, but oh well.

Ultimately, everyone has to follow God from their own hearts and the answers need to come because they’re seeking Him sincerely, not because someone throws the answers at them or forces them to believe. I don’t believe in forcing anyone, God gave hem free will, so who am I to try to take it away? Maybe I do throw answers around too much rather than just talking stuff through with people, and it’s because of that that I’ve walked away from apologetics before, sometimes for long periods of time. But for whatever reason, I seem to get drawn back to it.

I guess the thing with apologetics is, if you’re not careful it will make you prideful. Like the Bible says, knowledge puffs up but love edifies. Once I realize I’m wrong about something I always try to admit the wrong and eat humble pie. I’ve had to do it plenty of times, the way I see it, it’s the only way I can keep on learning. Maybe if it would be better for me if it happened more often in apologetics, but it seems like no one is willing to change their views until every last reservation, every last possibility in favor of what they believe has been exhausted, so it takes a long time for even the most honest people to come to that at any point.

 

[Church_Militant]

Well, I respect your choice because you’re clearly thinking it through and examining it for yourself. I’m not just taking for granted what everyone else is saying either though. I form my own opinions based on what I see the Bible teaching and upon a lot of thought on the subjects. Sometimes though, I think I might be too opinionated in stuff that can prove a distraction more than anything else, but oh well.

Ultimately, everyone has to follow God from their own hearts and the answers need to come because they’re seeking Him sincerely, not because someone throws the answers at them or forces them to believe. I don’t believe in forcing anyone, God gave hem free will, so who am I to try to take it away? Maybe I do throw answers around too much rather than just talking stuff through with people, and it’s because of that that I’ve walked away from apologetics before, sometimes for long periods of time. But for whatever reason, I seem to get drawn back to it.

I guess the thing with apologetics is, if you’re not careful it will make you prideful. Like the Bible says, knowledge puffs up but love edifies. Once I realize I’m wrong about something I always try to admit the wrong and eat humble pie. I’ve had to do it plenty of times, the way I see it, it’s the only way I can keep on learning. Maybe if it would be better for me if it happened more often in apologetics, but it seems like no one is willing to change their views until every last reservation, every last possibility in favor of what they believe has been exhausted, so it takes a long time for even the most honest people to come to that at any point.

I won’t argue that.

We just have to remember something that Our Lord said, and then something that St. Peter tells us in one of his letters.

Luke 17:[10] So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, `We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’"

1st Peter 3:[14] … Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
[15] but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
[16] and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
[17] For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

I won’t argue that.

We just have to remember something that Our Lord said, and then something that St. Peter tells us in one of his letters.

Luke 17:[10] So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, `We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’"

1st Peter 3:[14] … Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
[15] but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
[16] and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
[17] For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.

Very true. It’s keeping our eyes on our faults that keeps us grounded. Like Paul says, if we must glory we should do so in our weaknesses. I’ve noticed that it can be more important how we say something than what we say. I have a tendency to forget that unfortunately…

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Very true. It’s keeping our eyes on our faults that keeps us grounded. Like Paul says, if we must glory we should do so in our weaknesses. I’ve noticed that it can be more important how we say something than what we say. I have a tendency to forget that unfortunately…

I guess I approach apologetics like all I have to do is avoid reasoning errors and not insult or attack the other person and everything will be fine. But being gentle and reverent like the verses say… I need to be more than just objective.

Maybe I come off as a bit of a know-it-all because I try to be so objective. And at other times, I reason cases from Scripture or logical reasoning just because that’s what I’ve learned to expect people want with apologetics, when really my own convictions are shaped on different things, like… God’s faithfulness to me, or who I see God as in my relationship with Him.

And other times I may simply present a possible solution that I’m not personally convicted is right, as if just showing the person a solution exists will make them consider it. When really it may not be the right way, and thus I should always speak only on things absolutely convicted on.

 

[Good_Fella]

Sure, hostility would be between them. Just like it was between Satan and all others who chose to follow God, like David, Job, and all the other heroes of faith that the world persecuted as mentioned in Hebrews 11 because they were at enmity with Satan and his ways. They weren’t sinless, but Satan was still at enmity with them.

Why is it the Catholic Church believes Mary could have born sinless without her parents being sinless?

And if they believe that mitigating circumstances could cause it, why could those same circumstances not result in Jesus being born sinless without Mary being born sinless?

Especially since her sinlessness is nowhere alluded to in the Bible.

Her sinlessness is alluded to in Genesis 3, 15 for starters. Pope Pius lX, in his Apostolic Constitution, cites this verse adopting the argument from “fittingness” and the divine maternity (Mary invoked as the Mother of God) as the primary reason for Mary’s privilege of being preserved free from the stain of original sin: “And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent.” Therefore, the sufficient reason for the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary is the Mother of God, who conceived and bore the divine Person who took on our human nature by becoming man: “The Word became flesh” (Jn 1,14). God would not be pleased with anything less than a mother who was holy and sinless by his grace. The mother had to be absolutely worthy of conceiving and bearing God’s Only-begotten Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. The question of Mary’s sinlessness all has to do with the holiness of God and the holiness and sinlessness of the Son of Man. Filled with the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth cried out: “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Lk 1,42). Luke sees both mother and son equally blessed by the grace of God, as both mother and son are equally at enmity with Satan and his seed: original sin. Neither Jesus nor Mary succumbed to the temptations of the devil. Both mother and son heard the word of God and observed it (cf. Lk 11,28; Mt 4,11; Jas 4,7), for they had received an enduring plentitude of divine grace (Jn 1,14; Lk 1,28). Mary, as the God-bearer (Theotokos), had to be sinless in order to be in such intimate proximity to God, “overshadowed” by the power of the Most High (cf. Lk 1,35). Scripture teaches us that close proximity to God demands and imparts holiness (cf.Ex 3, 5).The Ark itself was so holy that only a privileged few were allowed to touch it (cf. Num 4,15; 2 Sam 6, 2-7). From apostolic time the Church has consistently taught that Mary was sinless; although Luke and the Scriptures aren’t as exegetically explicit as modern Protestants mistakenly believe the Bible is. It isn’t until the 18th century, with Voltaire and the Age of the Enlightenment, that we see widespread opposition to this doctrine by the emergent Protestant Fundamentalists who have no connection with the historic Christian faith and are outside the Church.

Catholics believe that Mary could have been born without original sin and thus sinless without her parents being preserved free from sin because Mary was not God Incarnate. It’s all about Jesus! If the Messiah had had a biological father, according to Judaic belief, Mary would not have been granted this unique privilege by God. She would not have acquired a claim to the adoration of veneration (‘hyperdulia’) above all the saints and the Old Testament heroines who prefigured her since Sarah, the mother of Isaac (a prefiguration of Christ). David, Job, and all the heroes of the Bible were not granted the exceptional privilege of divine maternity, so it is irrelevant to refer to them.

“I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”
{Isaiah 51, 10}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Jzyehoshua]

Her sinlessness is alluded to in Genesis 3, 15 for starters. Pope Pius lX, in his Apostolic Constitution, cites this verse adopting the argument from “fittingness” and the divine maternity (Mary invoked as the Mother of God) as the primary reason for Mary’s privilege of being preserved free from the stain of original sin: “And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent.” Therefore, the sufficient reason for the doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary is the Mother of God, who conceived and bore the divine Person who took on our human nature by becoming man: “The Word became flesh” (Jn 1,14). God would not be pleased with anything less than a mother who was holy and sinless by his grace. The mother had to be absolutely worthy of conceiving and bearing God’s Only-begotten Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. The question of Mary’s sinlessness all has to do with the holiness of God and the holiness and sinlessness of the Son of Man. Filled with the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth cried out: “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb” (Lk 1,42). Luke sees both mother and son equally blessed by the grace of God, as both mother and son are equally at enmity with Satan and his seed: original sin. Neither Jesus nor Mary succumbed to the temptations of the devil. Both mother and son heard the word of God and observed it (cf. Lk 11,28; Mt 4,11; Jas 4,7), for they had received an enduring plentitude of divine grace (Jn 1,14; Lk 1,28). Mary, as the God-bearer (Theotokos), had to be sinless in order to be in such intimate proximity to God, “overshadowed” by the power of the Most High (cf. Lk 1,35). Scripture teaches us that close proximity to God demands and imparts holiness (cf.Ex 3, 5).The Ark itself was so holy that only a privileged few were allowed to touch it (cf. Num 4,15; 2 Sam 6, 2-7). From apostolic time the Church has consistently taught that Mary was sinless; although Luke and the Scriptures aren’t as exegetically explicit as modern Protestants mistakenly believe the Bible is. It isn’t until the 18th century, with Voltaire and the Age of the Enlightenment, that we see widespread opposition to this doctrine by the emergent Protestant Fundamentalists who have no connection with the historic Christian faith and are outside the Church.

Catholics believe that Mary could have been born without original sin and thus sinless without her parents being preserved free from sin because Mary was not God Incarnate. It’s all about Jesus! If the Messiah had had a biological father, according to Judaic belief, Mary would not have been granted this unique privilege by God. She would not have acquired a claim to the adoration of veneration (‘hyperdulia’) above all the saints and the Old Testament heroines who prefigured her since Sarah, the mother of Isaac (a prefiguration of Christ). David, Job, and all the heroes of the Bible were not granted the exceptional privilege of divine maternity, so it is irrelevant to refer to them.

“I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”
{Isaiah 51, 10}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

I guess ultimately… my reasoning for Mary not being sinless, outside of apologetics or philosophy is simply this:

God alone is good. God isn’t pleased with any one of us based on our good deeds. The Bible speaks of our righteousness being through faith as with Abraham and through the sacrifice of what Jesus did for us on the cross, apart from any works by which we can never be justified according to the Law. If Mary could be justified before God, then it would not be as God says, that none are justified by their works before God. The reason God is pleased with us is because righteousness is reckoned to us not on the basis of our own sinlessness or righteousness but because of the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus and His payment for sins, not through anything that we ourselves can do.

I’m not trying to be mean about it, I just don’t see it reconciled with the Bible. All through the Bible, I see a pattern of God alone being lifted up. I firmly believe that to lift God up we must humble ourselves, it’s like a seesaw. I see Bible authors admitting their mistakes to show that God alone is good. I see the examples when mere men were worshiped of how they cried out that God only is good and worthy of praise. I hear the commandments that God only should we serve and worship. I just can’t see it in the Bible, that’s all.

 

[guanophore]

It was presented as a statement of truth that the flesh profits nothing, but it is the spirit that brings life. What makes you think you can disqualify it?

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

It is echoed also by Paul.

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Therefore, it is your reasoning which is not logical according to the Scriptures.

No one has “disqualified” the statement. We are just saying that you have taken it out of context, and misapplied it. The way you are using the principle, Christ’s flesh would have no value either, and we know that is wrong!

Why is it the Catholic Church believes Mary could have born sinless without her parents being sinless?

We believe that God can do whatever He wants, and it not bound my human experience and human reason?

And if they believe that mitigating circumstances could cause it, why could those same circumstances not result in Jesus being born sinless without Mary being born sinless?

I am sure they could, that is just not how God decided to do it. In Gen 3:15 He had already decided to create a new Eve that would triumph over the devil in a manner the first Eve did not.

Especially since her sinlessness is nowhere alluded to in the Bible.

Sure it is! It was in Paul’s sermons at Tyrannus!

 

[Mannyfit75]

Were having a theological discussion on it and i don’t see it there in Scripture. If she was sinless then this would have major ramifications for our understanding of the sciptures.

It would concern you because its not explicit in Scripture. You know well enough that neither I, nor any Catholic adhere to Sola Scriptura like you do. We Catholics adhere to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial authority to interpret them. I don’t see any major ramifications at all. It does not distract for God. The problem I see you have is that you don’t think God’s grace can save. For it is God’s grace that preserved Mary from commiting sin, and also preserved her from original sin. Your problem is God’s grace can’t do this.

Mary cooperated with God’s grace like I said before.

How about those things not in scripture? Things like statutes of her or total dedication to her?

Don’t bate me, justasking4. If you want to discuss statue make a new thread. Let’s focus on Mary’s sinlessness.

Is it right for a catholic to speak of her when the church has not ruled on her being the Spouse of the Holy Spirit?

The term “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” is used in a figurative language, much like calling her the daughter of the Father.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I guess ultimately… my reasoning for Mary not being sinless, outside of apologetics or philosophy is simply this:

God alone is good. God isn’t pleased with any one of us based on our good deeds. The Bible speaks of our righteousness being through faith as with Abraham and through the sacrifice of what Jesus did for us on the cross, apart from any works by which we can never be justified according to the Law. If Mary could be justified before God, then it would not be as God says, that none are justified by their works before God. The reason God is pleased with us is because righteousness is reckoned to us not on the basis of our own sinlessness or righteousness but because of the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus and His payment for sins, not through anything that we ourselves can do.

You miss the point. It is through God’s grace that Mary is preserved from original sin and from committing personal sin. She cooperated. By herself, she cannot save herself. God saves that is the key issue of Mary’s immaculate conception. God’s grace!

I’m not trying to be mean about it, I just don’t see it reconciled with the Bible. All through the Bible, I see a pattern of God alone being lifted up. I firmly believe that to lift God up we must humble ourselves, it’s like a seesaw. I see Bible authors admitting their mistakes to show that God alone is good. I see the examples when mere men were worshiped of how they cried out that God only is good and worthy of praise. I hear the commandments that God only should we serve and worship. I just can’t see it in the Bible, that’s all.

If you follow explicitly that all things concerning Christian doctrine ought to be in the Bible, then throw away the Trinity. That word is not in the Bible. That word was not used by the Church until 180 AD and defined in 325 AD. That is the problem with following Sola Scriptura.

 

[Jzyehoshua]

It would concern you because its not explicit in Scripture. You know well enough that neither I, nor any Catholic adhere to Sola Scriptura like you do. We Catholics adhere to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial authority to interpret them. I don’t see any major ramifications at all. It does not distract for God. The problem I see you have is that you don’t think God’s grace can save. For it is God’s grace that preserved Mary from commiting sin, and also preserved her from original sin. Your problem is God’s grace can’t do this.

Mary cooperated with God’s grace like I said before.

I do believe solely in Scripture. I believe it the path to having a relationship with God, it makes us wise to salvation if we are honest and sincere in seeking it. For me personally at least, I consider anything not explicit in Scripture as unnecessary. Beneficial perhaps, but not necessary.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I do believe solely in Scripture. I believe it the path to having a relationship with God, it makes us wise to salvation if we are honest and sincere in seeking it. For me personally at least, I consider anything not explicit in Scripture as unnecessary. Beneficial perhaps, but not necessary.

I believe Jesus is the path to salvation not the Bible itself. The Bible is only a collection of stories between God and mankind covenantal relationship.

Since you don’t consider anything not explicit in Scripture, then don’t believe in the Trinity. For I tell you the Trinity is necessary for our belief as well as other revealed truth which the Catholic Church professes to believe. This include the sinlessness of Mary.

Of course, you don’t believe that because you do not think God is capable of perserving Mary from sin. You don’t think God can do it. We Catholics believe God’s grace preserved Mary from original sin and personal sin.

Your problem is that God’s grace can’t do the impossible.

 

[justasking4]

I believe Jesus is the path to salvation not the Bible itself. The Bible is only a collection of stories between God and mankind covenantal relationship.

Since you don’t consider anything not explicit in Scripture, then don’t believe in the Trinity. For I tell you the Trinity is necessary for our belief as well as other revealed truth which the Catholic Church professes to believe. This include the sinlessness of Mary.

Of course, you don’t believe that because you do not think God is capable of perserving Mary from sin. You don’t think God can do it. We Catholics believe God’s grace preserved Mary from original sin and personal sin.

Your problem is that God’s grace can’t do the impossible.

There is a difference between looking for specific verses like Trinity and doctrines derived from the scriptures themselves. A believer in sola scriptrua would be a person that looks for doctrines to be derived from the scriptures in a clear and explicit way.

 

[guanophore]

God alone is good. God isn’t pleased with any one of us based on our good deeds.

This is very Catholic of you to say!

Did you somehow get the impression that Catholics believed Mary was sinless by her own power somehow?

God is pleased with us for our good deeds, but only when they are based in grace, through faith.

The Bible speaks of our righteousness being through faith as with Abraham and through the sacrifice of what Jesus did for us on the cross, apart from any works by which we can never be justified according to the Law.  If Mary could be justified before God, then it would not be as God says, that none are justified by their works before God.  The reason God is pleased with us is because righteousness is reckoned to us not on the basis of our own sinlessness or righteousness but because of the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus and His payment for sins, not through anything that we ourselves can do.

Yes, this is the Catholic teaching. We believe that Mary was saved by grace.

 I'm not trying to be mean about it, I just don't see it reconciled with the Bible.  All through the Bible, I see a pattern of God alone being lifted up.  I firmly believe that to lift God up we must humble ourselves, it's like a seesaw.

I don’t think you are being mean. I think you just misunderstand Catholicism.

Catholics believe that the reason God lifted Mary up is BECAUSE she was humble:

Luke 1:38
8 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”

Luke 1:48-55
“…for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; 49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. 51 He has shown strength with his arm, 52 he has put down the mighty from their thrones,and exalted those of low degree; 53 he has filled the hungry with good things,and the rich he has sent empty away. 54 He has helped his servant Israel,in remembrance of his mercy, 55 as he spoke to our fathers,to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.”

Mary was exalted by God’s grace, because she was humble, of low estate, and low in degree.

I see Bible authors admitting their mistakes to show that God alone is good.  I see the examples when mere men were worshiped of how they cried out that God only is good and worthy of praise.  I hear the commandments that God only should we serve and worship.  I just can't see it in the Bible, that's all.

We don’t see Mary sinning, and that is one reason we believe she did not (not the only one, but part of the equation). Catholics don’t worship Mary, but I am sure if they did, it would bother her. God shares his goodness and glory with His saints. God does command that we should serve others, especially the ministers of His word. In asmuch as they are joined to Jesus in life and mission, they are worthy of our honor.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3325318]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Do you also believe that there are others who have lived in history who did not sin at all? Are there others like Mary who chose not to sin?
guanophore
Do you not believe it is possible for a person to choose not to sin?

No. The reason is not only from mine and others expierence but also from Romans 7:15-23 which clearly explains why no one can stop sinning;

15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.

So long as we have these “fallen” human bodies we will have to contend with sin all the time.

Does the catholic church teach that a man could live a sin free life?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
These greek fathers are not saying these things based on the scriptures nor on what the word means. This is what Peter warned about in 2 Peter 2:1. This is what happens when you accept traditions that are not supported by the Scriptures.

guanophore
Yes and no. No, they are not based on the Scriptures, as none of Catholic Teaching is “based” there, but on the Divine Revelation.

What is this “Divine Revelation” that you speak of here? Are you saying the fathers had some kind of Divine Revelation?

These hymns represent the belief of the faithful that was passed down from the Apostles.

Do these hymns relect what the scriptures say about Mary?

As the centuries have passed, we have more and more clarity about the meaning of Mary’s role in the Kingdom.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3325271]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Actually I have the advantage over those who use sources of authority beyond the Scriptures. Remember, only the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant Word of God. Not Sacred Tradition nor the Magisterium. The challenge you have by adhering to these “extra sources” is to try to keep them in harmony with the Scriptures. That cannot be done since it has already been demonstrated that there are contradictions between the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition and Magisterium.

guanophore
No, ja4, we have no such challenge. Catholics have no need to “keep them in harmony”. This is the work of the HS. We just accept what has been revealed. If you prefer to think you have an advantage because you cannot reconcile them, each to his own!

Keep in mind that a failure to keep your traditions and teachings in harmony with scripture is a sign of error.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I don’t need any authority but the Scriptures. The Scriptures are enough to examine doctrines and practices and to see if they truly line up with the Scriptures. All Christians have the responsibility to hold their teachers accountable to the Word of God. I don’t see much of this in catholics that I know here.

guanophore
Catholics here wonder why you come, ja4. Since you don’t see us holding the teachers accountable, do you feel it is your responsibility to do so?

What responsiblity do you think you have?

It is lent now, and we are preparing for Easter. Any chance you can just tolerate us, instead of trying to change us into being like yourself?

This statement makes me think you are weary. Maybe you should take a break from our discussion until after easter. A good rest might do you good…:yawn:

 

[guanophore]

There is a difference between looking for specific verses like Trinity and doctrines derived from the scriptures themselves. A believer in sola scriptrua would be a person that looks for doctrines to be derived from the scriptures in a clear and explicit way.

You are absolutely right, ja4. We don’t find many Catholic doctrines specifically defined in scripture, but we derive them from the Scriptures, and the Revelation of God to the Apostles through Jesus and the HS. We don’t “derive” doctrine from Scripture because we get our doctrines directly from Christ.

I think the difference in where we get our doctrines is why it is difficult for some people to accept things like the sinlessness of Mary.

 

[guanophore]

No. The reason is not only from mine and others expierence but also from Romans 7:15-23 which clearly explains why no one can stop sinning;

Ahh. So, what Mannifit said about you is true! You really do have a shortened understanding of God’s grace. Well, news flash, ja4. The HS is shed abroad in our hearts through faith,a nd we CAN choose not so sin! Not by our own Power, but by His.

God never commands us to do the impossible. He always makes a way. You have stopped reading one verse short (again!)

Rom 7:24-25
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Jesus has overcome the world and the flesh and the devil, and by His power working within us we can choose not to sin. He has set us free from the bondage of sin, so that we can make this choice. This is what Mary did. It was easier for her to be successful because she was not in posession of the tainted flesh that Paul speaks about in Rom. 7. This condition is a result of original sin.

So long as we have these “fallen” human bodies we will have to contend with sin all the time.

I agree with you that we do battle temptation, but by God’s grace, we “have overcome the world, the flesh, and it’s desires”.

Does the catholic church teach that a man could live a sin free life?

Absolutely! Since we are getting close to the closing point of this thread, we should move that question to a new thread.

What is this “Divine Revelation” that you speak of here? Are you saying the fathers had some kind of Divine Revelation?

Yes, also an issue for another thread.

Do these hymns relect what the scriptures say about Mary?

I think not for you, since you don’t see the scriptures through the Divine Revelation that has been given to the Church, so you have a skewed perception of them.

 

[Mannyfit75]

There is a difference between looking for specific verses like Trinity and doctrines derived from the scriptures themselves. A believer in sola scriptrua would be a person that looks for doctrines to be derived from the scriptures in a clear and explicit way.

Did the Bible defined the Trinity, or did the Church Council? I’m sure you know the answer to this question. The Bible itself cannot be properly understood unless some authoritiative body like a Church to determine the truth. It was in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD that defined and declare God as three divine person. The Council did use Scripture to support this doctrine. First it was the bishop of Alexandria, Theophilus,and then Tertillian was credited to have used it. The Trinity is not explicit in Scripture.

There is no Scripture verse that describe God as Three Divine Persons but One God. Only in the Church such definition is used basing this concept from Scripture as well. There is no difference.

Likewise, the Church since around 200s believed Mary as sinless. In both in the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church as the Ark of the New Covenant.

In Catholic and Orthodox theology, the Ark of the Covenant is seen as the Old Covenant type or foreshadowing of the place of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the New Covenant. Pope Pius XII explained the connection in his apostolic constitution “Munificentissimus Deus”:

“Just as the New Covenant surpasses the Old, so the new Ark of the Covenant (Our Lady) is superior to the old. The old Ark contained the word of God inscribed on stone tablets, but the new Ark contained the Incarnate Word of God. The old Ark held the Law that could not justify, but the new Ark held Jesus Christ Who Himself is the eternal New Covenant with God; He Who justifies and saves.”

There are several direct parallels between between the Old Testament accounts of the Ark and the account of Mary in the Gospel of Luke:

The words of Ex. 40:34-38, referring to the cloud of the Lord’s presence “covering” the tent of the Ark are echoed in Gabriel’s words to Mary in Luke 1:35: “…the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow.”

David greets the Ark in fearful awe with the words “How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam.6:9); Elizabeth greets Mary with the words, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

In 2 Samuel 6:10-12 the ark is sent to the hill country of Judea and stays at the household of Obededom for three months; similary, Mary journeys to Elizabeth’s house and stays there three months.

Just as David danced in the presence of the Ark (2 Sam. 6:14), the babe in Elizabeth’s womb (John the Baptist) dances in the presence of God’s Shekhinah in Mary’s womb (Luke 1:41).
Additionally, in the Book of Revelation, St. John, immediately after seeing the Ark in Heaven, sees a “woman clothed with the sun” who bears a Child “who will rule the nations with an iron rod” (Revelation 11:19-12:5; cf: Psalm 2:9).

This teaching is found in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. A sermon attributed to St. Athanasius addresses the Blessed Virgin thus: “O Ark of the new covenant, clad on all sides with purity in place of gold; the one in whom is found the golden vase with its true manna, that is the flesh in which lies the God-head.” St. Gregory Thaumaturgus wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

In the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary, one of the titles by which Mary is addressed is “Ark of the Covenant”

Even though the sinless is not explicit in Scripture. It is implied and the Church of Christ have believed this to be true since the beginning. No early Christian believed that Mary sinned. It was not until the Protestants came into the picture.

Yes, there were ECF who say that Mary had faults, but none of the said she sinned. To consider Mary as sinful is a new doctrine.