Could Mary have sinned?

[justasking4]

EphelDuath;3124417]Because the majority of the writings were lost.

What writings are you referring to here?

EphelDuath
Why don’t we have the original Gospels? The oldest manuscripts we have are from the 4th century. Early Fathers wrote about her perpetual virginity and her being the Ark, which is further than most Protestants go.

We agree that we don’t have the original Gospels but we have enough copies of them to know what the originals would look like.

Even if the Early Fathers wrote that she did would not mean this is the truth for the mere fact that Scripture never presents her that way.

EphelDuath
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There’s a flaw in your argument: when the Church Fathers support Catholic doctrine, you say that they are unreliable, or their arguments unbiblical. Yet when the Fathers are silent about Catholic doctrine, you take that as evidence that our beliefs were invented. So which comes first in the chain?

The first in order of importance for doctrine and practice for Christians are the Scriptures. Without the foundation of the Scriptures you don’t have real Christian doctrine or practice. I remember reading somewhere in the early church fathers etc that all doctrines must be grounded in the Scriptures. Sorry i can’t remember the source.
Even catholics want to be able to claim this is true for their doctrines as of first importance.

 

[justasking4]

This link is very good in explaining why Mary couldn’t have had sin on her soul (ever)…and how even Martin Luther believed in Mary’s sinlessness. It talks about the Immaculate Conception, and continues from there.

acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2005/10/immaculate-conception.html

Here is a small passage from this article:

“Mary is addressed as “full of grace” which shows that she must be in complete favor of God to have earned the fullness of God’s grace. This particular instance is a special one, **in which God chose Mary to be conceived sinless **to make her a house for God to dwell within.”

Since Scripture is about all we know of Mary where does it say in them that “God chose Mary to be conceived sinless”?

Claims like this need to be supported or what you have here is mere speculations with evidence.

 

[EphelDuath]

What writings are you referring to here?

Generally, everything by the Church Fathers; they’ve written a lot more than we’ve recovered.

We agree that we don’t have the original Gospels but we have enough copies of them to know what the originals would look like.

But that’s my point; the reason why the Gospels are probably accurate are because of the sheer amount of manuscripts we have. Less care was probably given to the ante-Nicene Fathers’ writings.

Even catholics want to be able to claim this is true for their doctrines as of first importance.

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and the Ark was built to be incorruptible. Anyone who so muched as touched the Ark was slain for their unholiness, and we agree: the New Covenant is far superior to the Old. That’s enough evidence for me.

 

[EphelDuath]

Since Scripture is about all we know of Mary where does it say in them that “God chose Mary to be conceived sinless”?

Not specifically. Where does scripture specifically define the Trinity? Yet, you know that to be true.

However, the scriptural evidence is compelling. Luke 1 & 2 are specifically written to parallel the Ark of the Old Covenant with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Ark of the New.

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3123572]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
It is true that eveyone will evenually sin. The question is why? Where does it come from?
NotWorthy
This is contested. Everyone will not eventually sin. Jesus and Mary are two exceptions.

We agree that Jesus did not sin becasue of Who He is and His nature. Mary, howerever was a sinner being a daughter of Adam in which she inherited sin through her birth through her human parents. Do you agree that everyone of age today has sinned?

Quote:justasking4
Where did i say infants and the mentally handicapped are exceptions? How could they be if they inherit Adams sin nature?
NotWorthy
To sin is to knowingly disobey God’s commands.
Infants and the mentally handicapped do not know of this, so they can’t sin.

Then what of Romans 5:12 that says otherwise? Why then does your church baptize babies and the mentally handicapped if they are not guilty of sin?

Quote:justasking4
I don’t see much difference in your defintion with my understanding that all men are sinners from birth. Your definition below seems to bear this out also. Correct?
NotWorthy
No, I am not a sinner until I sin, even if I am steeped in Original sin.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

 

[EphelDuath]

Now, justasking4, I would like to apologize; I do respect your skepticism (it’s how I became Christian), I’m only frustrated because we seem to be going in circles.

 

[justasking4]

EphelDuath;3124512]

Not specifically. Where does scripture specifically define the Trinity? Yet, you know that to be true.

Then you admit the Scriptures teach this about her? (The Trinity is another issue that can be dealt with later)

However, the scriptural evidence is compelling. Luke 1 & 2 are specifically written to parallel the Ark of the Old Covenant with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Ark of the New.

Do you have access to some catholic commentaries on the Scriptures? If so, what do they say about the passages you quote?
Do they support your conclusions?

 

[justasking4]

Now, justasking4, I would like to apologize; I do respect your skepticism (it’s how I became Christian), I’m only frustrated because we seem to be going in circles.

No need to apologize. I’m not here to mock you or anyone else for their beliefs even though they don’t agree with mine. I think discussions like this can be profitable for all although frustrating at times.

God Bless

 

[EphelDuath]

Then you admit the Scriptures teach this about her? (The Trinity is another issue that can be dealt with later)

Yes, I believe that the Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, and coronation as Queen of Heaven can all be supported by scripture.

The only one that is not explicitly scriptural is the Assumption, but it’s not difficult to accept that once you’ve gotten past the others.

Do you have access to some catholic commentaries on the Scriptures? If so, what do they say about the passages you quote?

The only commentary I have off-hand is the Haydock, which makes no mention of it. The earliest mention of Mary as the Ark is Hippolytus.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” (235 AD)

But I fail to see your point: if scripture proves it, then it is true.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The gold did not come for some time later. When the wise men arrive, the child is referred to as a “paidon” (toddler) and they are living in a house. Also, Herod had all the children two years of age and younger slaughtered, as he ascertained the time of birth from the wise men.

Your full of something traditional NOT scriptural.
Carry out the logical conclusion of Luke 1:59.

Luke 1:59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

Luke 1:59 και εγενετο εν τη ημερα τη ογδοη ηλθον περιτεμειν το παιδι-ον και εκαλουν αυτο επι τω ονοματι του πατρος αυτου ζαχαριαν

original.biblebrowser.com/luke/1-59.htm

An newborn infant all the way through youth is a παιδ-ον (paidon) not just toddlers. Notice this is an eight day old baby being circumcised!!! ( which argues for baptism replacing circumcision with παιδον included in the new covenant too. )

As to Herod killing two year olds and younger, we have absolutely no information when the star appeared – at his birth or at his conception (incarnation) or what?. Herod wanted to make sure he killed the messiah, and if the information given by the wise men had been inaccurate or they had accidentally FIRST NOTICED the star long AFTER it first appeared he might have an older child on his hands – so Herod DEFINITELY would have built in a safety margin. He was paranoid, after all!

Also notice: natural explanations like commits, asteroids, and so forth DO NOT LAST TWO YEARS. So, the star appeared when appropriate to bring the magi for that purpose (in a far away land) – it is only tradition and a reasonable guess which ties the age of Jesus to the killing date of Herod. That’s not a scriptural proof.

Further the full argument is still being ignored – Jesus was IN BETHLEHEM when the wise men arrived. That is NOT Joseph’s hometown which is Nazareth – so we also need to know why he is still there – a dangerous place for him as the inheriting (eldest) descendant of King David.

The wise men are only one source of money, Joseph might have inherited as the probable eldest son in the line of King David he had special inheritance. Joseph did go to Bethlehem to be taxed, and that is not very far from Jerusalem where the magi appeared.

Improve the proof. Bethlehem was the HOUSE of David – to enter the city, is to enter the house of bread. Beth-lehem. (House of bread). The location of the stable is not mentioned, nor do we know that they didn’t move into a house (inn) a few days later. It still changes nothing, they could have been around dead animals – the donkey was kept in the stable no doubt even after the birth, etc.

So how do you Exclude the sacrifice not being for Joseph?

 

[Deana]

In reading the text for this week’s lesson for my Religous Ed class I noticed this “Mary had no inclination to sin”

Does that mean she could never have sinned (if so what about her free will?) or just that she did not have the same level of vulnerability to sin as we have?

If Mary could have sinned how was her state of grace different than the souls in heaven for whom sin is not possible? And what about their free will?

Thank you all in advance. You are tremendous help to me and the kids I’m doing my best to teach.

Mother Mary was conceived without original sin. Immaculate Conception is her given name. She was given free will like the rest of us but she conciously could not sin. She was, is, and always will be perfect. I hope this helps.

 

[Deana]

Here is a small passage from this article:

“Mary is addressed as “full of grace” which shows that she must be in complete favor of God to have earned the fullness of God’s grace. This particular instance is a special one, **in which God chose Mary to be conceived sinless **to make her a house for God to dwell within.”

Since Scripture is about all we know of Mary where does it say in them that “God chose Mary to be conceived sinless”?

Claims like this need to be supported or what you have here is mere speculations with evidence.

Elizabeth said it! “Hail Mary full of Grace…” Just believe and you will be given to know by Him Who made Mother Mary.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Justasking4,

My response at this point would apply to why the catholic church baptizes babies. There are sinners (even though they have not sinned in deed) because of the sin of Adam which they inherit. This would also apply to Mary since she to is a child of Adam.

This is a TRADITION of the catholic church, not a scriptural proof. The Tradition of the church provides an exception for Mary and Jesus with respect to being possessed by the devil. Quoting a half tradition, as half truth – is a lie as an argument.

Besides women were not baptized before Jesus came, nor were they circumcised. They were automatically part of the covenant at birth or they married into it. Mary was born into the Jewish covenant, and she is spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Original sin is an analogy, because it means one can’t attain heaven, not that one “sinned” as an act. This is NOT true in the case of Mary, because she is already FULL of grace – and the reward of this gift she had? → Jesus ← which IS heaven himself.

Part 1
In regards to Mary being the woman of Revelations 5 is not supported by some (name removed by moderator)ortant scholars of the catholic church. Let me quote what they write:
**Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary **(2:482):

Yeah, my least favorite authors. Not infallible, and did you even check to see if the argument was Good? It is always fun to quote a bad argument — their are millions of them.

For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2),

yeah, but they don’t say THEY think it, just that it would be inappropriate – nor do they actually say it is impossible. Pessimistic Lawyers! She is said to have a sword pierce her heart – I have addressed this before on CAF. Go search my old threads…

A simple answer to this which applies to Revelation, after the assumption – is that Jesus gave her to US as our mother while he was on the cross and we are sinners – as our adoptive mother, or mystical mother. The child TOO is the church – for we are the mystical Body of Christ. See St. Paul. Check the word for pain vs. the words used in Genesis, and note well – God did not say there was NO pain in the original condition, but only that he would INCREASE it. Another ‘tradition’ taken out of context is all this is…

that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.),

Yeah, and wasn’t there a desert between Bethlehem and Egypt, even during her physical life on Earth?

As our mystical mother, does she not go WITH the church as they flee into the desert? (Is she divorced from her child who is also the woman. All on earth fight the devil, all the church in heaven have escaped to God through Jesus. It is an ongoing process…)

or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17).

Yeah, the sword pierced her heart – and who swung it?
I have seen plenty of protestants persecuting her, it isn’t hard to imagine pharisees and sadduccees picking on her virginity while she was alive – after all they did want to discredit Jesus being born of a Virgin. (What a rediculous idea the YOUNG GIRL will be with child they say… Ha.)

The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

As you can see they reject the idea that Mary is the woman of Revelations 5 for good reasons.

No, I never saw them reject the opinion outright. They just were very pessimistic about it. It’s a good guess that they reject it.

They never did say “it could not be Mary” – you came to that conclusion yourself.

A bunch of nonsense which doesn’t answer the OP. I think she could have sinned, but had sufficient grace to make it impossible – just a traditional interpretation. I also think that there is no evidence that she DID sin which could be used to force the OP to answer in the affirmative.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m suprised. All orthodox protestants and material i have read all believe in the fall of man that resulted in making all of us sinners in need of Christ.

Have you run across any of those that believe Baptism is just symbolic? They tend to disagree with our assessment of Original Sin.

Even though the Roman Catholic church has been around longer doesn’t mean it has always taught the truth. If anything it shows how much it does promote beyond the Scriptures that i suspect catholics like yourself who are passionate about their belief in the church are backed into a corner to defend stuff like this topic an impossible task when confronted with evidence for it.

That’s funny. I don’t feel backed into anything. EVERYTHING makes, sense JA. Everything.

But I’m surprised at your comment about the Church’s longevity doesn’t prove it has always taught the truth? Don’t you read Scripture? Don’t you believe Jesus’ promises? Don’t you believe Gamaliel was being prophetic? Nothing rings truer than the teachings of the Church, JA.

I am pursuing this in regards to show not only the exceptions to being born "into sin " as Jesus, Adam and Eve were not because of their unique creation etc but to demonstrate that Mary herself was also a sinner because she to had 2 normal parents as you and all mankind have had. It will not do to make some kind of analogy to say she was “saved from sinning” and claim that this is indeed what happened when the Scriptures themselves never claim that. To do that would falsify Romans 5:12 and other scriptures that state all born of Adam are sinners.

---

To believe that Mary had sinned is to believe that the Holy Spirit guided Church erred within 100 years of the Apostolic Times. I fail to believe that, for that is not Scriptural, either!

 

[NotWorthy]

JA4? Why do all of your quotes of our postings ahve that weird mis-link in front of them? Just curious…

We agree that Jesus did not sin becasue of Who He is and His nature. Mary, howerever was a sinner being a daughter of Adam in which she inherited sin through her birth through her human parents. Do you agree that everyone of age today has sinned?

No, I don’t agree. I don’t agree that a man at my Church that is severely mentally handicapped could sin. He simply doesn’t understand.

Then what of Romans 5:12 that says otherwise? Why then does your church baptize babies and the mentally handicapped if they are not guilty of sin?

Because you cannot get to heaven but through Jesus. Baptism washes away Original Sin, which even the mentally handicapped are born with, thanks to that whole Eden thing - AppleGate, maybe?

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

Original Sin does not come to us through any sin of ours. Our sins themselves make us sinners, not Original Sin.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

To repeat the last definition of Original sin, but a little clearer.
Original sin is the absence of supernatural Grace in your soul.
It is, in effect, being a “temple” which is empty – therefore not a place of worship.

Jesus has a parable about the demon in a man, who then sweeps and cleans – but does not fill himself with God. The result?
Eventually the vacant temple is broken into again by 7 demons worse than the first.

Why, BECAUSE THE TEMPLE IS EMPTY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT and emptiness can be totally (7) occupied by evil.

Matthew 12:43-45.

Baptism includes a regeneration with water and spirit – the Holy Spirit is included in all sacraments, and that is called the epiclesis (calling upon).

In baptism it is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – in this new birth the Spirit fills the child as a work of Faith. In confirmation, the completion of baptism – which is part of infant baptism in the East, the person is sealed with the Holy Spirit in an even fuller indwelling.
All this is to the same end, making the temple of Christ’s body more impenetrable to the devil.

But to be merely empty is not to have already sinned in any positive sense, no act need be done, But at the same time heaven includes the indwelling of God in the person, which means that the empty person is still totally in hell (or here on earth as it were) rather than Heaven either partially or fully.

That is what Original sin is about, and it does not mean total corruption. There is a man in the Gospels who says he obeyed the law since his Youth – Jesus does not call him a liar, but rather it says he looked on him with “love”. But even this man can’t attain to heaven until he is filled with one thing more – Jesus.
The Gospel ends the incident with the man on verge of sin – going away sad because he had many possessions. He only lacked ONE thing.

 

[Good_Fella]

Since Scripture is about all we know of Mary where does it say in them that “God chose Mary to be conceived sinless”?

Claims like this need to be supported or what you have here is mere speculations [without?] evidence.

Where does it say in Scripture that Jesus is ‘homoousian’ with the Father: of the same substance and essence?

And where does it say in Scripture that Jesus was not ‘homoiousian’ with the Father: of the same substance, but not of the same essence?

In case you don’t know, since Scripture is relatively silent on the matter of Christ’s nature, the second Council of Nicea (A.D. 381/383) ultimately dogmatically declared (made explicit and definitive what is implicit in Scripture) that the Son is ‘homoousian’ with the Father in nature. In the fourth century, several branches of Arianism embraced one of the false and heretical doctrines known as ‘homoiousianism’, ‘homoianism’, and ‘heteroousianism’. The truth contained in Scripture prevailed with the establishment of the doctrine of ‘homoousianism’ by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church under the Pope, Bishop of Rome, who confirmed all the Patriarchates in the one Apostolic faith. Protestants are correct in believing that Scripture is materially sufficient as a medium of divine revelation, but they are grossly mistaken that Scripture is also formally sufficient. Obviously this cannot be true considering twenty major heresies have arisen in the history of the Church because of faulty and unauthoritative private interpretations. The early so-called Reformers can be counted among the likes of Arius and his followers, since Protestantism has also formed various branches of conflicting interpretations of Scripture. The Catholic Church, since apostolic times, has rightly maintained that Scripture is materially sufficient (it contains all that is necessary) but formally insufficient (it needs an authoritative interpreter) which alone is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

This same Church has as much authority in the public interpretation of Scripture to form its Marian doctrines as she does her Christological doctrines. That Mary was immaculately conceived and thus sinless is evident in Scripture, but this evidence is implicit and requires a “spiritual sense” to disclose as opposed to the “literal sense” of understanding the sacred texts. Christians who embrace the false principle of ‘sola scriptura’ and adopt a literal approach to understanding the Scriptures, and fail to look at particular texts as part of a unified whole from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 12, obviously arrive at the wrong conclusion that there is no biblical evidence that confirms the Church’s traditional Marian doctrines and devotions. By starting from the wrong premise, these Christians naturally reach false conclusions. Finally, appealing to the commentaries found in our bibles to argue against Church Marian doctrines constitutes a faulty line of reasoning, since these commentaries virtually function within the scope of the literal sense of understanding Scripture. The Sacred texts contain material that lies deeply underneath the historical surface and is woven like a thread throughout the entire Bible linking the Old Testament with the New. The Old Testament texts stand on their own: the virgin and child in Isaiah 7,14 form a near-term sign referring to the reign of King Ahaz in the 8th century B.C. and is not an oracle about Christ. But this prophecy does point towards Christ and finds fuller meaning and fulfillment in the Messiah along a unified, interwoven path. Likewise, the Ark of the Covenant is just that, but it does in a spiritual sense prefigure the Mother of our Lord. The evangelist Luke discerned the parallel between Mary and the Ark, or more likely expressed in literary form what the primitive Church had already traditionally understood about Mary by the mid-sixties. :yup:

At any rate, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, opposed the spread of Arianism in the East and insisted on the doctrine of ‘homoousianism’ with his fellow pro-Nicenes which led to the promulgation of a Christological dogma which is embraced even by mainstream Protestants. This is what the good Bishop, Father, and Doctor of the Church has to say about the sinlessness of Mary pointing towards the Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception of 1854:

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.”
{Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante A.D. 373)}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

Your full of something traditional NOT scriptural.
Carry out the logical conclusion of Luke 1:59.

Luke 1:59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

Luke 1:59 και εγενετο εν τη ημερα τη ογδοη ηλθον περιτεμειν το παιδι-ον και εκαλουν αυτο επι τω ονοματι του πατρος αυτου ζαχαριαν

original.biblebrowser.com/luke/1-59.htm

An newborn infant all the way through youth is a παιδ-ον (paidon) not just toddlers. Notice this is an eight day old baby being circumcised!!! ( which argues for baptism replacing circumcision with παιδον included in the new covenant too. )

Oh, I did not mean to say that Jesus was not circumcised on the 8th day, just that they might not yet have gotten the gold from the magi at that time. If it is traditional, I do not know. I was educated on these points at a Protestant Seminary, so whose tradition is that?

As to Herod killing two year olds and younger, we have absolutely no information when the star appeared -- at his birth or at his conception (incarnation) or what?.  Herod wanted to make sure he killed the messiah, and if the information given by the wise men had been inaccurate or they had accidentally FIRST NOTICED  the star long AFTER it first appeared he might have an older child on his hands -- so Herod DEFINITELY would have built in a safety margin.  He was paranoid, after all!

I have no argument with that either.

Also notice: natural explanations like commits, asteroids, and so forth DO NOT LAST TWO YEARS.  So, the star appeared when appropriate to bring the magi for that purpose (in a far away land)   -- it is only tradition and a reasonable guess which ties the age of Jesus to the killing date of Herod.  That's not a scriptural proof.

Some comets and other phenomena do last for years at a time. I was not trying to make an astrological proclaimation, or a “scriptural proof”. Just to point out that the wise men probably did not arrive when they were in the manger scene, as we often present them in nativity scenes.

Further the full argument is still being ignored -- Jesus was IN BETHLEHEM when the wise men arrived.  That is NOT Joseph's hometown which is Nazareth -- so we also need to know why he is still there -- a dangerous place for him as the inheriting (eldest) descendant of King David.

I never said he wasnt! Maybe, by the end of the week, when the city cleared out, they were able to rent a place?

The wise men are only one source of money, Joseph might have inherited as the probable eldest son in the line of King David he had special inheritance. Joseph did go to Bethlehem to be taxed, and that is not very far from Jerusalem where the magi appeared.

I think Joseph was very poor, and I doubt he had any inheritance. However, I am sure if he COULD have gotten better birth arrangements he would have done so. Jesus was born in a stable because He wanted to be born there.

Improve the proof. Bethlehem was the HOUSE of David – to enter the city, is to enter the house of bread. Beth-lehem. (House of bread). The location of the stable is not mentioned, nor do we know that they didn’t move into a house (inn) a few days later. It still changes nothing, they could have been around dead animals – the donkey was kept in the stable no doubt even after the birth, etc.

So how do you Exclude the sacrifice not being for Joseph?

Well, I was not excluding anything except enough gold to buy the pricey one.

 

[Deana]

Not to change the subject, but Inever see what others have replied to me from my e-mail. I know I’m doing something wrong. Also regarding the scripture about the demon coming back and bringing others with him, I had no idea that was about baptism. I thought it meant something else. Thanks!

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

Good Fella;3125396]Where does it say in Scripture that Jesus is ‘homoousian’ with the Father: of the same substance and essence?

And where does it say in Scripture that Jesus was not ‘homoiousian’ with the Father: of the same substance, but not of the same essence?

Interesting qestions but separate issues to the one at hand.

In case you don’t know, since Scripture is relatively silent on the matter of Christ’s nature, the second Council of Nicea (A.D. 381/383) ultimately dogmatically declared (made explicit and definitive what is implicit in Scripture) that the Son is ‘homoousian’ with the Father in nature. In the fourth century, several branches of Arianism embraced one of the false and heretical doctrines known as ‘homoiousianism’, ‘homoianism’, and ‘heteroousianism’. The truth contained in Scripture prevailed with the establishment of the doctrine of ‘homoousianism’ by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church under the Pope, Bishop of Rome, who confirmed all the Patriarchates in the one Apostolic faith. Protestants are correct in believing that Scripture is materially sufficient as a medium of divine revelation, but they are grossly mistaken that Scripture is also formally sufficient. Obviously this cannot be true considering twenty major heresies have arisen in the history of the Church because of faulty and unauthoritative private interpretations. The early so-called Reformers can be counted among the likes of Arius and his followers, since Protestantism has also formed various branches of conflicting interpretations of Scripture. The Catholic Church, since apostolic times, has rightly maintained that Scripture is materially sufficient (it contains all that is necessary) but formally insufficient (it needs an authoritative interpreter) which alone is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.