Could Mary have sinned?

[MariaG]

First off, another question for you. Why do you not answer simple questions about your own faith, as I did yours by providing scripture?

I would be glad to answer these questions, with the scripture. And could you please answer the questions I have asked in previous posts?

1. You believe in original sin? edit: I see you have answered this one to the best of your ability in post 238. Probably need a thread devoted to original sin to explore whether or not your understanding matchest he Catholic Church But for the moment, I think we can say yes, you believe in the concept of original sin.
2. You believe Romans is referring to original sin and not personal sin?
3. You believe baptism is an actual miracle which removes original sin, and one is born again through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? If an actual miracle, do you baptize infants? Why or why not?
4. You believe baptism is only symbolic?

 

[MariaG]

Now, to answer your questions

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

It appears as you seem to believe that people will always understand scripture immediately at the many levels God inspired it to be written?

Why would those who God inspired to write the OT write these things explicitly about the Mother of the Messiah when they really didn’t even understand who and why the Messiah was coming for?

As for “even imply”, yes they did and I have shown the scripture that was inspired to be written about Mary that corresponds to the OT, showing us that even if the writers did not understand, or those who read the words did not fully comprehend, that Mary was the Ark (the vessel the carried) the New Covenant, the Word incarnate.

Anyone in the NT make this connection?

Again, those whom God inspired to write the NT were not ready to hear all that Christ had to tell them. Scripture EXPLICITLY tells us this. Yet you seem to wish to beleive that people understood all?

However, I do believe in fact the disciples understood. I don’t think that those who heard, the average person in the pew understood, but it is quite clear that those who were taught by the apostles, who then taught others, understood that Mary was the New Eve. These teachings were entrusted to faithful men just as scripture tells us.

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

You misunderstand scripture. These verses show that Mary “knew” no man. No one touched Mary intimately, or else God would have slain them as surely as He slew the man who accidently touched the Ark that carried the word.

Frankly, this one here, I find it odd when people continue to insist that Mary had other children or even marital relations with Joseph, when scripture can not be clearer.

The men who touched the ark that carried the word of God were slain.

Any man who touched the ark(Mary) who carried the Word, would have been slain.

Unless one wishes to deny that Mary carried God incarnate, the Word, I don’t see how they can come to any other conclusion:shrug:

Do you believe Mary had other children? If yes, do you continue to believe so now? Or are these questions going to be unaswered also?

 

[MariaG]

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

This is reading into the text what is not there.

Okay, let’s analyze this more thouroughly than just dismiss it out of hand.

**1 Chron. 13:**9] And when they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah put out his hand to hold the ark, for the oxen stumbled. 10] And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and he smote him because he put forth his hand to the ark; and he died there before God.

First of all, why was God angry that Uzzah even accidently touched the Ark? What did the Ark carry that was so important to deserve such a fate? And more importantly, what went into the making of the Ark?

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

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

Again, unless you wish to contradict scripture and tell me that the disciples of Christ were ready to hear and understand everything, why does this need to have explicitly happened in scruipture?

Second, you seem to be saying that Mary did not carry the word of God? Or?

The Ark, was venerated and it carried the Word of God. Either you believe that the Ark, an inanimate object that God took painstaking care to make sure was made properly, should not have been venerated, or you believe that Jesus, the Word incarnate was less than the word of God that the vessel that carried Him should not be venerated?

Will you answer these questions?

Why did the Baptist leapt for joy? Was it because of Mary’ own nature or because of Who she was carrying?

Why did King David leap for Joy? Did he leap for joy at the Ark, or what the Ark carried?

We Catholic Christians completely understand that John the Baptist leap for Joy because Mary carried the Word. If Mary carried the Word of God, what would she have been called in the OT? And if the Ark was venerated in the OT, shouldn’t the ark that carried the Word incarnate be venerated?

You actually made my argument for me without even understanding the significance:shrug:

Does the Baptist ever refer to her in his ministry?

No, why would he? He leapt for Joy at whom Mary carried, just as David leapt for joy at what the Ark carried.

You still have a basic misunderstanding about Marian Doctrine. It is not about Mary, but it is all about Christ and His holiness.

So, will you answer any of these questions?

Respectfully,
Maria

 

[Jerry-Jet]

justasking4: do you think thart you should call Mary blessed?

 

[Truthstalker]

Whatever you want to call it i.e. original sin in catholic theology i go by Romans 5:12 and other passages in scripture that speaks of the fallness of man that still has its effects in all men and women today. We “inherit” this sin nature from Adam and this explains why all men have a bent towards sin in which on their own they powerless to stop.

Does this differ from the doctrine of orignal sin and if so how?

The doctrine of original sin is a Catholic conception (bad pun alert!). The Orthodox reject it in favor of us having an inclination to sin. What I attempted to point out is that you seem to be attacking Catholic theology from within its presuppositions, without realizing it. If the doctrine of “original sin” is true, someone inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin; if it is false, someone only carries a propensity for sin, which he inherits from Adam, but sins on his own by inclination.

I see the IC as the most economical solution to the problem of how Jesus was conceived without inheriting sin from Mary. It is not the only solution - this question was debated for a long time within the Catholic Church. Aquinas, for example, rejected it. The Catholics like to pretend there has been a unified historical consensus on this issue. There were ECF’s who believed Mary sinned, some of whom are Fathers of the Church. The Catholic case is weaker than they want you to believe, but stronger than you think it is.

As for the “Ark” theory: if anywhere Jesus sat was was residence of God, does that mean any chair, any bed, any place He was was suddenly so holy that anyone who dared to sit in a chair after Him got killed? I don’t think so. The implication is that sex is inherently sinful, an idea of gnostic origins that crept its way into the monastic movement and the early asceticism of severe celibacy. Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine were all celibate, and regarded that state as spiritually much superior to marriage. It was not until the Reformation that anyone (besides Paul) recognized marriage as a godly institution. Prior to that celibacy was the way to go, so Mary and Joseph HAD to be celibate. There are clear references in Scripture to Jesus’ brothers and sisters and the interpretation Catholics put on these passages seems strained and unconvincing, often more an attempt to explain them away than deal with them. Sex is not inherently sinful. Matter is not inherently evil. God made all things good.

Mary, full of grace, could be full of grace in Scripture in the same way that the earth is full of the glory of the Lord. There is still room for sin in both and for both to be full as described. Grace covers AND removes sin. So I am saying she COULD have sinned. I am not saying she DID.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It was not until the Reformation that anyone (besides Paul) recognized marriage as a godly institution.

I disagree.

The Catholic Church had always consider marriage as a Godly institution. In fact the Church highly esteemed marriage as a Sacrament. It is one of the Seven Sacrament.

Prior to that celibacy was the way to go, so Mary and Joseph HAD to be celibate. There are clear references in Scripture to Jesus’ brothers and sisters and the interpretation Catholics put on these passages seems strained and unconvincing, often more an attempt to explain them away than deal with them.

The Essenes practiced celibacy. As well as John, the Baptist practiced it, Jesus Christ, and maybe even John, the Beloved Disciple, and yes, St. Paul also was celibate.

Sex is not inherently sinful. Matter is not inherently evil. God made all things good.

Sex is a beautiful act. Sexual intimacy is an expression between a man and woman, in order to partake in creation. That is why it is called “Pro-Creation.”

Mary, full of grace, could be full of grace in Scripture in the same way that the earth is full of the glory of the Lord. There is still room for sin in both and for both to be full as described. Grace covers AND removes sin. So I am saying she COULD have sinned. I am not saying she DID.

Grace removes sins. It doesn’t cover it. In our baptism, our sins are washed away clean. To wash away, is to removal of dirt, in this case sin.

Mary’s full of grace, derives from the Greek word kecharitomene.
The Greek word is kecharitomene [kecaritomene]. I do not remember having read this word elsewhere in Scripture. An expression of this kind, “Hail, full of grace,” is not addressed to a male. This greeting was reserved for Mary alone.

The root word is charitoo [caritow], which means “to grace, favor.”

The prefix on charitoo is ke, signifying that the word is in the perfect tense. This indicates a present state which is the result of a completed past action. The action which brought about the state in which Mary is, in other words, was completed before Gabriel’s greeting. Gabriel is viewing the finished results.

This tense seems difficult to render in English, especially with one word, as Gabriel uses. The translator does not only want to indicate that the past action is complete, but also that there is a continuing state as a result. Allowing for more than one word, an example of the tense in English might be “you are certified to teach.” “Are” indicates a present state, “certified” shows that the state is the result of a completed past action.

mene

The suffix on charitoo, mene, makes this a passive participle. “Passive” means that the action is performed on the subject, in this case Mary, by another agent. The verb is “grace” and the implied subject is Mary. The passive usage means that “someone graced Mary,” rather than “Mary graced.” Most theologians would probably accept the assumption that the implied “someone” is God. “Participle,” in this case, means that the word has properties of both a verb and a noun. This makes sense in light of what has already been said about direct address. A direct address is a noun or pronoun, but “to grace” is a verb. Kecharitomene has verb and noun properties.

((continue))

 

[Mannyfit75]

Pope John Paul II made a very clear case for this in his writings:

The expression “full of grace” is the translation of the Greek word kecharitomene, which is a passive participle. Therefore to render more exactly the nuance of the Greek word one should not say merely “full of grace,” but “made full of grace,” or even “filled with grace,” which would clearly indicate that this was a gift given by God to the blessed Virgin. This term, in the form of a perfect participle, enhances the image of a perfect and lasting grace which implies fullness. The same verb, in the sense of “to bestow grace,” is used in the Letter to the Ephesians to indicate the abundance of grace granted to us by the Father in His beloved Son (Eph. 1:6) and which Mary receives as the first fruits of Redemption (c.f. Redemptoris Mater, no. 10).

I also like to add that the Early Church Fathers stated Mary had faults, not sin verbatim. They claim she was capable of sinning, but she did not sin. They believe that Mary remain sinless. No ECF claim she sinned. Many Protestant apologist cite the word “fault” as a sin. Their argument just fall apart and I find the Protestant argument extremely weak.

 

[MariaG]

As for the “Ark” theory: if anywhere Jesus sat was was residence of God, does that mean any chair, any bed, any place He was was suddenly so holy that anyone who dared to sit in a chair after Him got killed? I don’t think so. The implication is that sex is inherently sinful, an idea of gnostic origins that crept its way into the monastic movement and the early asceticism of severe celibacy. Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine were all celibate, and regarded that state as spiritually much superior to marriage. It was not until the Reformation that anyone (besides Paul) recognized marriage as a godly institution. Prior to that celibacy was the way to go, so Mary and Joseph HAD to be celibate. There are clear references in Scripture to Jesus’ brothers and sisters and the interpretation Catholics put on these passages seems strained and unconvincing, often more an attempt to explain them away than deal with them. Sex is not inherently sinful. Matter is not inherently evil. God made all things good.

This part of your post, I just had to respond to.

Big difference between sitting on a chair and residing in a womb. Big difference. And frankly, I really can’t believe you are trying to compare the two.

To then to try to make the jump from this to say that sex is inherently sinful, is, words dessert me, especially from one as intelligent as you.

You are making a strawman argument about sex being inherently evil, tearing it down, when the Catholic Church teaches no such thing. Nor does the Church even try to say that all God made is not good. We are not the ones that teach man is totally depraved, but rather we teach man only has a wounded nature.

As for the men of the Church who believe being celibate is better, they are only following the biblical truth taught by Paul. By your reasoning, Paul must have thought marriage and sex were sinful too:nope:

I truly expected better from you

 

[Good_Fella]

Now, to answer your questions
It appears as you seem to believe that people will always understand scripture immediately at the many levels God inspired it to be written?

Why would those who God inspired to write the OT write these things explicitly about the Mother of the Messiah when they really didn’t even understand who and why the Messiah was coming for?

As for “even imply”, yes they did and I have shown the scripture that was inspired to be written about Mary that corresponds to the OT, showing us that even if the writers did not understand, or those who read the words did not fully comprehend, that Mary was the Ark (the vessel the carried) the New Covenant, the Word incarnate.

Again, those whom God inspired to write the NT were not ready to hear all that Christ had to tell them. Scripture EXPLICITLY tells us this. Yet you seem to wish to beleive that people understood all?

However, I do believe in fact the disciples understood. I don’t think that those who heard, the average person in the pew understood, but it is quite clear that those who were taught by the apostles, who then taught others, understood that Mary was the New Eve. These teachings were entrusted to faithful men just as scripture tells us.

You misunderstand scripture. These verses show that Mary “knew” no man. No one touched Mary intimately, or else God would have slain them as surely as He slew the man who accidently touched the Ark that carried the word.

The men who touched the ark that carried the word of God were slain.

Any man who touched the ark(Mary) who carried the Word, would have been slain.

Unless one wishes to deny that Mary carried God incarnate, the Word, I don’t see how they can come to any other conclusion:shrug:

Indeed, Protestant Fundamentalists naively belief that the authors of Scripture were individually each enlightened with comprehensive and explicit knowledge at the moment they picked up their pens, that everything has been literally spelled out for us with no underlying implications whatsoever.

Luke and John presented Mary in their gospels according to the traditional understanding of her in the primitive Church. The Church relied on the Old Testament texts to make sense of Christ and Mary’s part in God’s plan of salvation. Luke clearly draws an analogy between Mary and the Ark in chapters 1 and 2, while John presents Mary as the Gebirah (Cana) who intercedes for us all at the right hand of her Son.

That is true. Protestant Fundamentalists have no clear understanding of the nature of Scripture or of the divine inspiration behind it.

In the Greek there are two forms in which the present tense can be used: Permanent and Temporary: P= I am human; T= I am cold.I believe that Luke adopts the P form when he presents Mary saying to the angel Gabriel “I know not a man.” Luke is telling us that Mary is a virgin (P form). Virginity can be a permanent state, whereas abstaining from sexual relations would be a temporary instant of time. Mary does not say “I have not known man.” (I am cold.) So Luke 1,34 concerns a present condition that has reference to the future (not the past) and so is permanent: Mary tells the angel that she has no intention of ever having relations with any man, including her betrothed, so she asks the angel “How shall this be?” (How shall I conceive a child in the future, since I am a virgin?)

Thanks for the additional insight, Maria G.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

This part of your post, I just had to respond to.

Big difference between sitting on a chair and residing in a womb. Big difference. And frankly, I really can’t believe you are trying to compare the two.

To then to try to make the jump from this to say that sex is inherently sinful, is, words dessert me, especially from one as intelligent as you.

You are making a strawman argument about sex being inherently evil, tearing it down, when the Catholic Church teaches no such thing. Nor does the Church even try to say that all God made is not good. We are not the ones that teach man is totally depraved, but rather we teach man only has a wounded nature.

As for the men of the Church who believe being celibate is better, they are only following the biblical truth taught by Paul. By your reasoning, Paul must have thought marriage and sex were sinful too:nope:

I truly expected better from you

Indeed! And may we point out that it is in the Catholic Church where divorce is prohibited, according to our Lord’s command, and civil marriage is elevated to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

'Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part (sitting at the feet of Jesus with complete attention given to the kingdom of heaven), which will not be taken from her."
{Luke 10, 38-42}

Jesus could very well have been referring to his mother’s undivided faithfulness in him and in his mission on earth. How dare modern day Protestants try to take Mary’s chosen virginity from her! It will not be taken from her, Jesus says.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Truthstalker]

I also like to add that the Early Church Fathers stated Mary had faults, not sin verbatim. They claim she was capable of sinning, but she did not sin. They believe that Mary remain sinless. No ECF claim she sinned. Many Protestant apologist cite the word “fault” as a sin. Their argument just fall apart and I find the Protestant argument extremely weak.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. See Basil: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.cclxi.html for example:

1. By a sword is meant the word which tries and judges our thoughts, which pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of our thoughts. Now every soul in the hour of the Passion was subjected, as it were, to a kind of searching. According to the word of the Lord it is said, “All ye shall be offended because of me.”%between% Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man—to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even thou thyself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shalt be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. “That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” He indicates that after the offence at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ. What was human in him was proved unsound, that the power of the Lord might be shewn.

Here Mary is accused of doubt. Lack of faith. Unbelief, in other words.

See also Tertullian, De Carne Christi, chapter 7,ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vii.html, where T. states he believed Mary was tempting Christ to leave His ministry. Origen, Chrystotom, and Cyril of Alexandria all have statements regarding her anxiety, doubt, and maternal vanity. While they viewed Mary highly, they were far from viewing Mary as without sin. There was no consensus fidei patrum on Mary being without sin. Rather the consensus appears to have been the reverse of the modern Catholic idealization.

The Greek word “hamartia” is sin. It means “missing the mark.” Anything less than perfection is missing the mark, that is, it is sin. If she had a fault, then she was sinning.

 

[Truthstalker]

This part of your post, I just had to respond to.

Big difference between sitting on a chair and residing in a womb. Big difference. And frankly, I really can’t believe you are trying to compare the two.

To then to try to make the jump from this to say that sex is inherently sinful, is, words dessert me, especially from one as intelligent as you.

You are making a strawman argument about sex being inherently evil, tearing it down, when the Catholic Church teaches no such thing. Nor does the Church even try to say that all God made is not good. We are not the ones that teach man is totally depraved, but rather we teach man only has a wounded nature.

As for the men of the Church who believe being celibate is better, they are only following the biblical truth taught by Paul. By your reasoning, Paul must have thought marriage and sex were sinful too:nope:

I truly expected better from you

Let’s not take this off track too much.

Mary as the Ark? When the Shekinah was still in the Temple, not so many miles distant? The Ark was the center of worship, where sacrifices were made. Mary is never portrayed as such, and frankly it would be idolatrous to so regard her as the Tabernacle as it was in the desert.

The implication is that somehow Mary would have been defiled by sexual activity, hence she must have remained a virgin. I’m saying sexual activity is not necessarily sinful. Jesus lay in a manger - not exactly a holy place, either before He lay there or afterwards - when the animals ate from it. What sanctified it was His presence. Animals that dared eat from it afterwards did not immediately die.

Ok. I am dense. There is a difference between a womb and a chair. Or a bed a child sleeps in. Or a shirt he wears continually. But what it is it that is so compelling restrictive about the womb that makes it mandatory that no other child could have occupied it, that the approach of Joseph would have defiled Mary, if not that sex is somehow inherently sinful, even between a godly man and his godly wife?

Total depravity is not what you think it is. I think we’ve been over that ground before.

Paul did not think marriage was sinful. Neither has the Church taught it. But it has, especially in monasticism, emphasized virginity as a virtue far above anything achievable in a married state. One can be a lay Catholic and trudge along in the trenches. But the spiritually superior, the elite, are chaste. If you really want to advance in the Catholic Church you cannot marry. Priests, deacons, nuns, monks are all single. What message does that send about the sinfulness of sex? And this ties in directly to the contradictory message that Mary was both married and a lifelong virgin.

Maybe I should throw in Psalms 69:8 about now. In this prophecy Jesus was deserted by His mother’s sons.

 

[Truthstalker]

Indeed, Protestant Fundamentalists naively belief that the authors of Scripture were individually each enlightened with comprehensive and explicit knowledge at the moment they picked up their pens, that everything has been literally spelled out for us with no underlying implications whatsoever.

Luke and John presented Mary in their gospels according to the traditional understanding of her in the primitive Church. The Church relied on the Old Testament texts to make sense of Christ and Mary’s part in God’s plan of salvation. Luke clearly draws an analogy between Mary and the Ark in chapters 1 and 2, while John presents Mary as the Gebirah (Cana) who intercedes for us all at the right hand of her Son.

That is true. Protestant Fundamentalists have no clear understanding of the nature of Scripture or of the divine inspiration behind it.

In the Greek there are two forms in which the present tense can be used: Permanent and Temporary: P= I am human; T= I am cold.I believe that Luke adopts the P form when he presents Mary saying to the angel Gabriel “I know not a man.” Luke is telling us that Mary is a virgin (P form). Virginity can be a permanent state, whereas abstaining from sexual relations would be a temporary instant of time. Mary does not say “I have not known man.” (I am cold.) So Luke 1,34 concerns a present condition that has reference to the future (not the past) and so is permanent: Mary tells the angel that she has no intention of ever having relations with any man, including her betrothed, so she asks the angel “How shall this be?” (How shall I conceive a child in the future, since I am a virgin?)

Thanks for the additional insight, Maria G.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Sources for these statements about Protestant theology, which you do not understand, please.

You cite Catholic theology to prove Catholic theolgy in a circular argument. You read too much into the text rather than approaching the text for what it says.

 

[Truthstalker]

Indeed! And may we point out that it is in the Catholic Church where divorce is prohibited, according to our Lord’s command, and civil marriage is elevated to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

'Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part (sitting at the feet of Jesus with complete attention given to the kingdom of heaven), which will not be taken from her."
{Luke 10, 38-42}

Jesus could very well have been referring to his mother’s undivided faithfulness in him and in his mission on earth. How dare modern day Protestants try to take Mary’s chosen virginity from her! It will not be taken from her, Jesus says.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

This is just plain sloppy. Mary in this passage is Martha’s sister, not Mary His mother. Sheesh.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. See Basil: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.cclxi.html for example:

Here Mary is accused of doubt. Lack of faith. Unbelief, in other words.

Accused of doubt. Since when is doubt a sin, or where is her lack of faith, or unbelief? On what grounds? I do not see any such claim that St. Basil sinned. Being tempted is not a sin. Even Jesus was tempted by the Devil, does it make him guilty of sin? I don’t think so.

To doubt and act upon it is a sin itself** but thinking about doubt and not act upon it is not sinful.**

See also Tertullian, De Carne Christi, chapter 7,ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vii.html, where T. states he believed Mary was tempting Christ to leave His ministry. Origen, Chrystotom, and Cyril of Alexandria all have statements regarding her anxiety, doubt, and maternal vanity. While they viewed Mary highly, they were far from viewing Mary as without sin. There was no consensus fidei patrum on Mary being without sin. Rather the consensus appears to have been the reverse of the modern Catholic idealization.

The Greek word “hamartia” is sin. It means “missing the mark.” Anything less than perfection is missing the mark, that is, it is sin. If she had a fault, then she was sinning.

Ok, Tertullian** claim that Mary was tempting Christ to leave his Ministry**? Oh, please. The **Scripture doesn’t even show that. I would have to say Tertullian’s exegesis **on the passage is rather weak.

I also like to add that none of the ECF which you cited said that Mary sinned.

Truthstalker, I admire your insistence, but I was listening to Tim Staples tape concerning ECF thinking that Mary sin, which were refuted. The full consensus of the ECF believe that Mary is pure and spotless like her Son. They may have some ideas that she may doubt, or other, but these are not sins.

 

[Truthstalker]

Truthstalker, I admire your insistence, but I was listening to Tim Staples tape concerning ECF thinking that Mary sin, which were refuted. The full consensus of the ECF believe that Mary is pure and spotless like her Son. They may have some ideas that she may doubt, or other, but these are not sins.

What “full consensus”? I just showed a significant number who departed from whatever other “full consensus” you or Mr. Staples drum up. These authors believed Mary sinned. Whether they believed she sinned is the question, not whether you believe she sinned. They believed she sinned.

Did God grant Mary the grace to not sin her entire life? And what happend to her free choice to sin? This question seems more to the point of the thread, and it seems like every point in theology is getting addressed except this one.

By the way, as if it mattered, I am not convinced Mary sinned. Or that she didn’t. Scripture seems to stop one inch short of a clear statement. When a woman told Jesus, “blessed is the womb, etc.,” He neither confirmed nor condemned the statement. He changed the subject. Every scene in Scripture with Mary it is POSSIBLE someone could go through what she did without sinning. I couldn’t. Few could. Did she? Catholics insist she did not sin, but why is it so important that she be without sin?

.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What “full consensus”? I just showed a significant number who departed from whatever other “full consensus” you or Mr. Staples drum up. These authors believed Mary sinned. Whether they believed she sinned is the question, not whether you believe she sinned. They believed she sinned.

Some did but the majority believe Mary is pure and sinless.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“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.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Did God grant Mary the grace to not sin her entire life? And what happend to her free choice to sin? This question seems more to the point of the thread, and it seems like every point in theology is getting addressed except this one.

God gave Mary grace and preserve her because she was to become the Mother of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, incarnate. God hate sin. I do not think God, the Father want his Son to be born from a someone who is “UNCLEAN” with sin.

Mary was already saved by the merit of sacrifice of the cross made by her Son Jesus Christ. The sacrifice transcends time and space.

Much like us being saved from Jesus’ blood, we were not there when Jesus died, but his death destroyed our sin, and his rising restored our life.

By the way, as if it mattered, I am not convinced Mary sinned. Or that she didn’t. Scripture seems to stop one inch short of a clear statement. When a woman told Jesus, “blessed is the womb, etc.,” He neither confirmed nor condemned the statement. He changed the subject. Every scene in Scripture with Mary it is POSSIBLE someone could go through what she did without sinning. I couldn’t. Few could. Did she? Catholics insist she did not sin, but why is it so important that she be without sin?

I do not believe Jesus rebuke his mother. Rather, he praised her. He is a Jew after all, and Jewish man is always obedient to his parent. Mary is blessed because Mary said, all generation will call me blessed. Jesus echo this when he said, “Blessed is she who hears the Word of God, and keep it.” Mary heard and keep it! She is the obedient servant of God. She is the Handmaid of the Lord.

The Church Church believed Mary remain sinless and she is Immaculate because the Church is exercising Her authority. Jesus instructed his Apostles, that is a man sin against you, you take it up with two other witnesses. If he disagrees, they must take it to the Church. This passage is found in Matthew 18. This passage also was enacted in the Council of Jerusalem.

Jesus established Church with authority. The authority to bind and loose. Mary’s sinlessness is the matter of faith. It is required to all Catholic faithful to believe in this. If you are not Catholic, it would not matter.

For me as a Catholic, it does matter! Why? Because Jesus told that us that he will lead us to all truth. When the Church speak on moral and faith, Jesus speaks. It is not Pope who speak. Rather, Jesus uses the mouth piece of Pope. When the Church says, “Mary is without sin then she has no sin.”

 

[justasking4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Mary is never referred to as the mother of the church by any writer of Scripture. Its not even implied.

NotWorthy
Let’s see. The early Roman’s executed all the leaders of the Church. What do you think they would have wanted to do with the King’s mother of this New Church?

Mary is still alive when most of these Scriptures were being written.

Hmmmmmmm…

And besides, if Jesus is killed for his kingship, the whole royal family would have been killed. Yep, the Romans would have rounded up James, and Joses, and the rest of the numerous brothers and sisters that our dear Mother of God’s human nature also had (please note the tongue in cheek on this last comment).

I suppose this might be one possiblity but there really are no facts to back this up. Rather there was plenty of time for the apostles to think of her in her relationship to Christ and never drew the conclusions that the catholic church does about her.

 

[justasking4]

Mother Mary only had Jesus. She didn’t have any other biological children. Brothers and sisters is used ib that days context for cousins and other family members.

Not so. It is by far best to think of these children as “real” children born by natural means of a relationship with Joseph.