Could Mary have sinned?

[justasking4]

Good Fella;3135550]It is not a separate issue. Only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture.

Where do you get this idea? Its not in Scripture for one. Secondly, your church has infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures. This means it has failed its own people by keeping them in the dark what the individual verses and passages mean.

Our Lord promised Peter and the Apostles that the Paraclete would guide his Church in all truth and preserve her from error. (cf. Jn 16, 12-13). This promise applies to both our Christological and Marian doctrines. Ironically, Protestants accept the Church’s Christological doctrines, but not her Marian teachings. This is because Protestantism is a pick-and-choose-whatever-you-want-to-believe-in tradition. Hence, Protestantism is a disunity of faith.

Protestants reject the marian doctrines on Biblical grounds. Now if you want to talk about your “traditions” then lets start with what they are. A list of all of them would be extremely helpful so i would know exactly what they are instead of a generalized term that doesn’t tell me that much.

If it were a matter of getting some doctrines right and not others, then there would be no point in Jesus sending us the Spirit of truth; for we wouldn’t be in a position to know which doctrine is really true and which one isn’t. But this is the dilemma the Protestant churches find themselves in, not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is One and Apostolic in her teachings, so it is obvious where the Spirit of truth is present and active.

It is not true that the catholic church is “Apostolic in her teachings” for the mere fact she teaches doctrines and practices the apostles never spoke of.

The spiritual orphans Jesus mentions are those who have removed themselves from the historic Christian faith and the Catholic Church - and thereby the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

So much could be said here. Lets take your last comment–“Catholic Church - and thereby the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.” is so problematic for catholics when we look at history. Look the inquisitions. Look at the abuses of your popes and clergy. Was the Holy Spirit guiding and protecting the catholic church while these things went on for centuries ?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

Where do you get this idea? Its not in Scripture for one.

Because the Church is the author, and she most clearly can articulate what She meant to say. The writers of the NT never dreamed that their writings would be divorced from the Apostolic Teaching from whence they came.

Secondly, your church has infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures. This means it has failed its own people by keeping them in the dark what the individual verses and pasages mean. .

This is calumny, ja4. You bear false witness against the Catholic Church in saying this. On the conrtrary, it has been repeatedly explained to you that the Church interprets all the scripture in the light of the Apostolic Teaching from whence it came, and does not cherry pick verses out one by one, or try to build doctrine based on one or two verses taken out of their context. The accusation that the Catholic Church tries to keep it’s members in the dark about scripture is a particularly vile accusation.
justasking4;3136516:

Protestants reject the marian doctrines on Biblical grounds.

Right. And your point is?

Now if you want to talk about your “traditions” then lets start with what they are. A list of all of them would be extremely helpful so i would know exactly what they are instead of a generalized term that doesn’t tell me that much.

You have demonstrated clearly that you don’t want to be told much of anything Catholic. You have said that you are not here to learn, and that you keep asking for a “list” of traditions so that you can demonstrate to all the people on the forum that they are the mere “speculations of men”. You are like a buzzing fly on this point.

It is not true that the catholic church is “Apostolic in her teachings” for the mere fact she teaches doctrines and practices the apostles never spoke of.

How do you know that, since you were not present to hear them?

So much could be said here. Lets take your last comment–“Catholic Church - and thereby the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.” is so problematic for catholics when we look at history. Look the inquisitions. Look at the abuses of your popes and clergy. Was the Holy Spirit guiding and protecting the catholic church while these things went on for centuries ?

Absolutely! How else could she ever survive such chaos?

 

[epostle]

Good Fella;3135550]It is not a separate issue. Only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture.

Where do you get this idea? Its not in Scripture for one

.
John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

Secondly, your church has infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures. This means it has failed its own people by keeping them in the dark what the individual verses and passages mean.

You have redefined infallibility in a reckless manner. First, the Church has no need to reduce God’s divine word into a flat linear plane that only speaks to one group of people in one time frame. You are projecting a 16th century Nominalist world view, and other modernisms, that froze interpretation that spoke to a bourgeois class that denigrates the Bible, and your man-made principles of Bible interpretation are still used. Because the Church does not fit your narrow view of what infallibility is and how it is applied, you reject it out of reflex. Third, this comment is a blatant lie. A primary function of the Church is to teach and proclaim the Scriptures, which she has done and continues to do.

Protestants reject the marian doctrines on Biblical grounds.

No, they reject Marian doctrines on private interpretation of the Bible, and denial of development of doctrine, since Protestantism is primarily reductionism.

Now if you want to talk about your “traditions” then lets start with what they are. A list of all of them would be extremely helpful so i would know exactly what they are instead of a generalized term that doesn’t tell me that much.

Would you accept the Traditions that all true believers believed and followed BEFORE THE CANON OF THE BIBLE? The evidence is overwhelming, but you accept none of it. More was written by the Early Church Fathers on the Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration than any other doctrines OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES, but you don’t accept any of that either, so what is the point? Do you blindly reject the authority of scripture as a Tradition of the Church as well???

Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others. The historical evidence is there for anyone who is honest and humble enough to seek it.

It is not true that the catholic church is “Apostolic in her teachings” for the mere fact she teaches doctrines and practices the apostles never spoke of.

The Apostles never spoke of human cloning and test tube babies, so it’s ok, since it is not in the Bible, :banghead:
and I submit you haven’t a clue as to what “Apostolic Teaching” means. We identify with the historic, consistent, authoritive Church, Protestants MUST re-write history to suit an agenda, including propagating myths.

 

[EphelDuath]

Where do you get this idea? Its not in Scripture for one.

2 Peter 1:20

Secondly, your church has infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses of the Scriptures. This means it has failed its own people by keeping them in the dark what the individual verses and passages mean.

Infallible interpretation is not equal to basic interpretation. Infallible declaration means that the Church’s teaching on that particular passage is an ultimatum and indisputable on grounds of heresy.

The Church teaches that Christ’s sacrifice is a fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 3:15. It does not infallibly teach this, but it’s obviously true. You’re showing a lack of knowledge about Church authority.

Protestants reject the marian doctrines on Biblical grounds.

Using the same Bible that the Catholic Church wrote to document its traditions.

Now if you want to talk about your “traditions” then lets start with what they are. A list of all of them would be extremely helpful so i would know exactly what they are instead of a generalized term that doesn’t tell me that much.

I cannot list them all here. You can seek the Catechism for every major Church teaching.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

It is not true that the catholic church is “Apostolic in her teachings” for the mere fact she teaches doctrines and practices the apostles never spoke of.

An argument from silence is unconvincing at best. First of all, as John says in the ending to his Gospel, he could not possibly record every act of Jesus; Apostolic tradition fulfills this duty, except Protestants toss that out. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says we are to hold on to oral traditions; so your point is, “how can we know what was actually apostolic and what was invented?” The apostles also wrote that the Church cannot err in these matters (1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:19).

So much could be said here. Lets take your last comment–“Catholic Church - and thereby the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.” is so problematic for catholics when we look at history. Look the inquisitions. Look at the abuses of your popes and clergy. Was the Holy Spirit guiding and protecting the catholic church while these things went on for centuries ?

Again, you show a lack of knowledge about our theology. The Holy Spirit guides Church councils and ex cathedra Papal statements from error. Which essentially means that the Magisterium cannot collectively teach error. The Spirit does not guide individuals from failing.

What do you think the stories of Peter and Judas Iscariot are supposed to mean? One of Christ’s own apostles betrayed him; yet, his teachings did not fail despite a heretic in his ranks. Contrastingly, you have Peter who denies Christ, an individual failing; but he could never teach error (at an ecunemical council or official Papal decree), as Jesus had protected him from that (Matthew 16:18).

Jesus says many times that his Church will not fail. Protestants accept this to mean the collective Christian church, but how is that not a failure? Over half of all Christianity is entangled deep in idolatry (according to Protestants), and the other half can not agree on a single issue due to a lack of a central authority to rightly interpret scriptures. That is a horrible failure overall; Jesus’ promises to stay with his brethren only make sense if the Church is still one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

 

[planter654]

Another thought came to mind about rituals and purposes of sacraments:

Jesus was baptized
Baptisms are typically for the death of the old man and the putting on of the new man, as Paul describes in in Galatians, which is Christ

Why was Jesus baptized then?
Looking right after the baptism, Jesus began his work on this earth.

Maybe baptism in Jesus’ case was not for the forgiveness of sins but for the beginning of his holy work

In the same sense, could it be possible that Mary’s brining of Jesus to the temple with two doves was not for her own sin but to present Jesus to Simeon, since that fulfilled the prophecy that Simeon would see the Messiah?

Just a thought on second meanings…

God Bless,

Murph

And also Anna would give God’s message to Mary about the future sufferings foretold to her, that she would indure. Just pondering.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

You have redefined infallibility in a reckless manner. First, the Church has no need to reduce God’s divine word into a flat linear plane that only speaks to one group of people in one time frame. You are projecting a 16th century Nominalist world view, and other modernisms, that froze interpretation that spoke to a bourgeois class that denigrates the Bible, and your man-made principles of Bible interpretation are still used. Because the Church does not fit your narrow view of what infallibility is and how it is applied, you reject it out of reflex. Third, this comment is a blatant lie. A primary function of the Church is to teach and proclaim the Scriptures, which she has done and continues to do.

This is a very enlightening comment for me, and I find it helpful. I am torn about whether ja4 is lying, although it seems to me to be the case, there is a chance that he really cannot see the facts. He may be so steeped in his anti-Catholic bias that he really believes what he says.
epostle;3136718:

Would you accept the Traditions that all true believers believed and followed BEFORE THE CANON OF THE BIBLE? The evidence is overwhelming, but you accept none of it. More was written by the Early Church Fathers on the Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration than any other doctrines OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES, but you don’t accept any of that either, so what is the point? Do you blindly reject the authority of scripture as a Tradition of the Church as well???

No, clearly he does not, as he has stated that “some things they got right”. I gather those are the things he agrees with.

The historical evidence is there for anyone who is honest and humble enough to seek it.

I cant tell if he is dishonest or just in denial, but it is clear that he is not here to seek any evidence or truth. His goal is to debunk the evidence.

The Apostles never spoke of human cloning and test tube babies, so it’s ok, since it is not in the Bible, :banghead:

and I submit you haven’t a clue as to what “Apostolic Teaching” means. We identify with the historic, consistent, authoritive Church, Protestants MUST re-write history to suit an agenda, including propagating myths.

ja4 believes that everything of value that the Apostles taught was written in the bible, and that there are no important apostolic teachings outside of it.

 

[justasking4]

.

Quote:
Good Fella;3135550]It is not a separate issue. Only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Again, 2 Peter 1:20 does not mandate or claim that only the catholic church has the authority to interpret Scripture. Here is what the New American Bible says on this verse;
[20-21] Often cited, along with 2 Tim 3:16, on the “inspiration” of scripture or against private interpretation, these verses in context are directed against the false teachers of 2 Peter 2 and clever tales (2 Peter 1:16). The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings (2 Peter 1:21), but moved by the holy Spirit, not from their own interpretation, and is a matter of what the author and Spirit intended, not the personal interpretation of false teachers. Instead of under the influence of God, some manuscripts read “holy ones of God.”
Not even the catholic people who wrote the commentary in this bible agree with you.

It is a good thing that Apostolic Teaching is not defined by commentary footnotes! But, you are wrong. As has been pointed out to you about the charism of infallible interpretation, this exactly represents what the Catholic Church holds and believes. The authors (Catholics) and the Spirit’s intentions are the context in which it is to be interpreted. You have rejected both.

Nor is there any guarantee that the catholic church or any church would be able to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. The various passages you quote have failed to support your claim.

Your refusal to accept the promise of Christ in no way nullifies that promise, any more than the betrayal of Judas diminishes his reign.

No doubt there are some divisions in protestantism but the same holds true in the catholic church among its leadership and people on various issues.

This is true, but unity is not based upon the “leadership adn people on various issues”. Unity is based upon adherance to the TEachings. Any leaders or people who do not accept the message as handed on to us from the Apostles have separated themselves from unity. Everyone has a right to do this, just as you have.

 

[EphelDuath]

What does your “oral apostolic tradition” tell you exactly they were?

Stations of the Cross, for one.

None of these verse say that “Only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture”. Not even in context does it come close to saying this kind of thing.

Personal interpretation is out. That leaves Church interpretation and what else? All that’s left IS the Magisterium.

Not even the catholic people who wrote the commentary in this bible agree with you.

What are you talking about? That quotation proves our point perfectly: “The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings (2 Peter 1:21), but moved by the holy Spirit, not from their own interpretation, and is a matter of what the author and Spirit intended, not the personal interpretation of false teachers.”

Nor is there any guarantee that the catholic church or any church would be able to infallibly interpret the Scriptures.

What do you think AND THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT means?

The Church says, personal interpretation is out; scripture is only valid when interpreted in the light of the Magisterium’s authority. If you’re saying that’s wrong, then the Church is in apostasy and therefore Matthew 16:18 is a false prophecy.

 

[justasking4]

epostle;3136718].

Quote:
It is not true that the catholic church is “Apostolic in her teachings” for the mere fact she teaches doctrines and practices the apostles never spoke of.
justasking4
The Apostles never spoke of human cloning and test tube babies, so it’s ok, since it is not in the Bible,
and I submit you haven’t a clue as to what “Apostolic Teaching” means.

Do you have the defintion of how your church has defined "Apostolic Teaching” ?

We identify with the historic, consistent, authoritive Church, Protestants MUST re-write history to suit an agenda, including propagating myths.

If you want to speak about myths thats what we have with the doctrine that Mary never sinned. Its just cannot be supported by the Scriptures. There are no references to such a thing about her.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3136430

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where then does it mention it?

Then lets bring our “research” to the table and discuss it. We have an opportunity with our differences above.

Church Militant
Done…

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.

I still don’t see any reference in this verse that would lead one to think that Mary was immaculately concieved. The angel is giving her a greeting and mentions nothing about her own conception needing also to be without sin. Also none of the other writers of the NT mention it either.

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.

Again this paragraph fails to offer any support that she was always without sin.

Link

 

[guanophore]

What exactly were these “other things not written in the Scriptures”? What does your “oral apostolic tradition” tell you **exactly **they were? What are the specific things that Jesus spoke that are not in the Scriptures?

Warning to other thread participants

Don’t fall for this. I spent months on this question with ja4, only to find out that he has no interest at all in learning about Sacred Tradition.Furthermore, he does not believe it exists. In the end, I learned that ja4 believes

1. “Sacred Tradition” is really only the speculation of men
2. The Teachers of the Church have led Catholics astray
3. Catholics fail to hold their teachers accountable for teaching errors
4. His goal in askng it is to create dialogue through which he hopes to convince Catholics of 1-3 above.

justasking4:

This is not true. What you must do is be on guard against false teachers in your own church. The scriptures do warn of false teachers in the church itself. There was no promise given by Christ that this would not happen.

But nevertheless it is important to see what these Traditions are, what is there origin and when did they begin. If you are going to defend the catholic church you going to have to defend its Sacred Traditions also. Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand in the catholic church.

guanophore:

My question is, why is it important to YOU, to know what these Traditions are? You have already said that you don’t believe anything that is not written in the Bible. Why do you keep asking about them?

justasking4:

Because the catholic church elevates these Tradition claims to the same level as the inspired-inerrant Scripture. Second, if catholics are going to believe that
these Traditions are at the same level as Scripture then its vitally important to understand specifically what these Traditions are.

guanophore:

You have already stated they are “speculations of men” and have no validity, since you do not see them in your bible.

justasking4:

i want to help others see it to. Engaging for the truth is never a waste of time. Secondly it might get someone who reads these posts to rethink their position.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=170992&page=11&highlight=you+must+do+is+be+on+guard+against+false+teachers+in+your+own+church

 

[guanophore]

Do you have the defintion of how your church has defined "Apostolic Teaching” ?

If you want to speak about myths thats what we have with the doctrine that Mary never sinned. Its just cannot be supported by the Scriptures. There are no references to such a thing about her.

I am curious, ja4. What is your motive for coming to a Catholic forum to discuss things that you believe are “myths” and “speculations of men”? It seems like a strange way to invest one’s time.

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

Again this paragraph fails to offer any support that she was always without sin.

JA4, I’ve been very hesitant to call you anti-catholic. Your questions always seem honest and your answers are rather well thought out. But here you are flat out denying what you typed earlier.

You told me that Adam and Eve were created in a state of sanctifying Grace, and none but they and Jesus were created/born this way. Now you read the link I copied and make the state that this proves nothing. If Mary was in a state of Sanctifying Grace from the first moment of existence, then she could only have been Immaculately Conceived.

The Link you noted could be false in your opinion, but it does point to the IC, even if you think it is using faulty logic.

 

[justasking4]

JA4, I’ve been very hesitant to call you anti-catholic. Your questions always seem honest and your answers are rather well thought out. But here you are flat out denying what you typed earlier.

You told me that Adam and Eve were created in a state of sanctifying Grace, and none but they and Jesus were created/born this way. Now you read the link I copied and make the state that this proves nothing. If Mary was in a state of Sanctifying Grace from the first moment of existence, then she could only have been Immaculately Conceived.

The Link you noted could be false in your opinion, but it does point to the IC, even if you think it is using faulty logic.

Have looked up the words in Luke 1:28 in a greek lexicon? If you do, what you will not find what you posted above i.e. then she could only have been Immaculately Conceived. Here is what the greek lexicon i use that helps me to understand what words mean in their original contexts and meanings:
To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitóō is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace.
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.)
What troubles me with those who try to use the Scriptures to support these claims about Mary is the reading into the words catholic doctrines to make it sound like the Scriptures teach such a thing.Such is the case here with the phrase “highly favored one”.

 

[guanophore]

Have looked up the words in Luke 1:28 in a greek lexicon? If you do, what you will not find what you posted above i.e. then she could only have been Immaculately Conceived. Here is what the greek lexicon i use that helps me to understand what words mean in their original contexts and meanings:
To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitóō is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace.
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.)
What troubles me with those who try to use the Scriptures to support these claims about Mary is the reading into the words catholic doctrines to make it sound like the Scriptures teach such a thing.Such is the case here with the phrase “highly favored one”.

I agree with you that using this greeting to “prove” the IC is quite a stretch. It does not trouble me, since I can accept the Apostolic Teaching without depending solely on the NT, but I do agree with your point. At some point you might be interested to investigate what the Orthodox believe about Mary. They do not agree with the concept of the IC either, but from the beginning, along with the Western Church, have honored Mary as “all Holy ever Virgin”. This is what they rec’d from the Apostles also, and is most certainly not based on any Roman tradition, of which they are highly suspect.

 

[Good_Fella]

.
John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.You have redefined infallibility in a reckless manner. First, the Church has no need to reduce God’s divine word into a flat linear plane that only speaks to one group of people in one time frame. You are projecting a 16th century Nominalist world view, and other modernisms, that froze interpretation that spoke to a bourgeois class that denigrates the Bible, and your man-made principles of Bible interpretation are still used. Because the Church does not fit your narrow view of what infallibility is and how it is applied, you reject it out of reflex. Third, this comment is a blatant lie. A primary function of the Church is to teach and proclaim the Scriptures, which she has done and continues to do. No, they reject Marian doctrines on private interpretation of the Bible, and denial of development of doctrine, since Protestantism is primarily reductionism.
Would you accept the Traditions that all true believers believed and followed BEFORE THE CANON OF THE BIBLE? The evidence is overwhelming, but you accept none of it. More was written by the Early Church Fathers on the Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration than any other doctrines OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES, but you don’t accept any of that either, so what is the point? Do you blindly reject the authority of scripture as a Tradition of the Church as well???

Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others. The historical evidence is there for anyone who is honest and humble enough to seek it.
The Apostles never spoke of human cloning and test tube babies, so it’s ok, since it is not in the Bible, :banghead:
and I submit you haven’t a clue as to what “Apostolic Teaching” means. We identify with the historic, consistent, authoritive Church, Protestants MUST re-write history to suit an agenda, including propagating myths.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Thanks for sparing me the time to respond to someone who never tries to listen.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Deana]

At the risk of repeating myself:
(please note the tongue in cheek on this last comment).

You know, no matter how long we debate over this, the way for proof is through the Holy Spirit giving you to know the truth.

 

[NotWorthy]

Have looked up the words in Luke 1:28 in a greek lexicon? If you do, what you will not find what you posted above i.e. then she could only have been Immaculately Conceived. Here is what the greek lexicon i use that helps me to understand what words mean in their original contexts and meanings:
To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitóō is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace.
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.)
What troubles me with those who try to use the Scriptures to support these claims about Mary is the reading into the words catholic doctrines to make it sound like the Scriptures teach such a thing.Such is the case here with the phrase “highly favored one”.

Now, this is better from you, JA4. I can at least see where you are coming from and why.

 

[Deana]

Does anyone in the OT ever imply or state explicitedly that the mother of Messiah would be like this?
Anyone in the NT make this connection?

If what you say is true then why did not people die when they touched Mary?

This is reading into the text what is not there.

Did anyone in the NT venerate Mary like this? Does anyone sing songs to her for example?

Why did the Baptist leapt for joy? Was it because of Mary’ own nature or because of Who she was carrying?
Does the Baptist ever refer to her in his ministry?

Mother Mary never sinned!!! It was against her nature which is immaculate! Look it up in the dictionary re.: “IMMACULATE”!!!