Could Mary have sinned?

[guanophore]

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

Do you read the Scriptures? If so, you to must interpret what you read. If you go to what your church says about them, you must also interpret what they say to. No getting around personal interpretations.

This is absolutely true, which is why it is so great to have an infallible guide when doing so!

Can you point to where your church has offically interpreted this passage?

ja4, you have been repeatedly informed that Catholics interpret Scripture as Jesus taught, as a whole. Catholics do not separate passages from one another. You are free to reject this method, but don’t try to press the fundamentalist error on people here.

It could mean quite a number of things.

Nice dodge!

Not necessarily. I would think that there are a number of catholic scholars who would not support your conclusions here.

Yes, I am sure that is true. But Jesus did not give the care of the Church into the hands of scholars (He could have chosen the Pharisees). Instead, He gave it into the care of those to whom He had taught EVERYTHING, and those whom He empowered with the HS to discern the truth from falsehood.

Why do you keep looking to a source other than Divine Revelation?

 

[guanophore]

What matters most is not what the church uses to describe the doctrine but what is the evidence from Scripture that she was immaculate.

That is what matters most to you because you have rejected the Authority that Jesus appointed to shepherd the Church. You have put yourself in the place of that authority, so your priorities are upside down.

The making of the ark was a very specific and precise thing. Its construction is also described in the OT.

Exactly! this is why we note that the preparation fo Mary was a very specific and precise act of God.

If you had some support from the NT on your typology for Mary and ark then there would be some substance to your claims. The problem is that there is none about Mary being some kind of ark and giving her honor like the catholic church does.

I think you make these kind of statements because you don’t understand the references in the book of Luke.

In a sense yes but that would not automatically mean she was some kind of ark. Its the differences between making Mary some kind of ark type with the ark itself that makes this theory break down.

Really? Where do you see the differences?

Was the ark itself to venerated in the OT? Were the people themselves to focus on ark as a object worship or on the One Who stood behind it?

Absolutely the Ark was treated with great reverence, and was respected as a holy object. Just as with Mary, the people were to look through the Ark itself to the One Who occupies it. This is another good example of the typology.

How does it harm your relationship with God if you accept Mary as the Ark?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3286366]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not so. It is by far best to think of these children as “real” children born by natural means of a relationship with Joseph.

Do you read the Scriptures? If so, you to must interpret what you read. If you go to what your church says about them, you must also interpret what they say to. No getting around personal interpretations.

guanophore
This is absolutely true, which is why it is so great to have an infallible guide when doing so!
Couple of things;
1- since you claim to have an infallible guide what do you do when you must interpret verses and passages that your infallible guide has not interpreted?

2- Even with an infallible guide you must interpret the infallible guides teachings. What i have seen among catholics are different personal interpretations among catholics what things mean. Its no different thant protestants interpreting the scriptures on their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Can you point to where your church has offically interpreted this passage?

guanophore
ja4, you have been repeatedly informed that Catholics interpret Scripture as Jesus taught, as a whole. Catholics do not separate passages from one another. You are free to reject this method, but don’t try to press the fundamentalist error on people here.

This really doesn’t say much for the church then since all you can do is give but generalized interpretations. You will never be able to understand much of the scriptures with this kind of method.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
It could mean quite a number of things.

guanophore
Nice dodge!

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not necessarily. I would think that there are a number of catholic scholars who would not support your conclusions here.

guanophore
Yes, I am sure that is true. But Jesus did not give the care of the Church into the hands of scholars (He could have chosen the Pharisees). Instead, He gave it into the care of those to whom He had taught EVERYTHING, and those whom He empowered with the HS to discern the truth from falsehood.

What about teachings that Jesus nor His apostles never taught?
Jesus only taught so much and hopefully we can agree its contained in the NT. Would this be correct?

Why do you keep looking to a source other than Divine Revelation?

I don’t. That’s why i make my primary case for doctrine and practice from the Scriptures.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

guanophore
How can you prove this, since not everything they said, did, and believed is written in Scripture?

I’m not the one making the claim that she was without sin. Catholics are. All that we know what Jesus said and did and what His apostles said and did can only be found in the Scriptures. Thats our limitations. There is no apostolic support that says she was without sin.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3286400]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What matters most is not what the church uses to describe the doctrine but what is the evidence from Scripture that she was immaculate.

guanophore
That is what matters most to you because you have rejected the Authority that Jesus appointed to shepherd the Church. You have put yourself in the place of that authority, so your priorities are upside down.

i’m doing what the Scriptures command us to do. We are to hold the teachers of the church accountable to the Scriptures. If the Scriptures don’t teach something as doctrine neither should anyone else. Here is what Basil of Caesaria wrote in regards to doctrines:
"We ought to carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered to us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin. (Prolegomena, 2, Work 3, Ascetic (iii) )

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The making of the ark was a very specific and precise thing. Its construction is also described in the OT.

guanophore
Exactly! this is why we note that the preparation fo Mary was a very specific and precise act of God.

This is what is called reading into the passage. As you may know, those that knew her best never make such a comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If you had some support from the NT on your typology for Mary and ark then there would be some substance to your claims. The problem is that there is none about Mary being some kind of ark and giving her honor like the catholic church does.

guanophore
I think you make these kind of statements because you don’t understand the references in the book of Luke.

Not so. What i don’t accept on scriptural grounds is using the scriptures in this fashion. It violates the integrity of the scriptures and tries to make them say things that were never intended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
In a sense yes but that would not automatically mean she was some kind of ark. Its the differences between making Mary some kind of ark type with the ark itself that makes this theory break down.

guanophore
Really? Where do you see the differences?

The ark is dead wood while Mary was alive.
If the ark was not properly handled a person could die. Should we assume if she was not a person would die?

The ark had a mercy seat. Is there anything in Mary that she had mercy in herself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Was the ark itself to venerated in the OT? Were the people themselves to focus on ark as a object worship or on the One Who stood behind it?

guanophore
Absolutely the Ark was treated with great reverence, and was respected as a holy object. Just as with Mary, the people were to look through the Ark itself to the One Who occupies it. This is another good example of the typology.

The problem with this is that there is no record of anyone in the NT looking at Mary and seeing Jesus.

Does the catholic church itself endorse this kind of thinking in its documents?

How does it harm your relationship with God if you accept Mary as the Ark?

For one the scriptures don’t teach it. Secondly, my relationship to God has nothing to do with Mary. The ark itself disappears i think during the time of Jeremiah. The apostles never use it as a type for her or Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

Couple of things;
1- since you claim to have an infallible guide what do you do when you must interpret verses and passages that your infallible guide has not interpreted?

Catholics interpret scripture in the light of the Apostolic Teaching from whence it came. I am not aware that there are any teachings that have not been interpreted, are you?

2- Even with an infallible guide you must interpret the infallible guides teachings. What i have seen among catholics are different personal interpretations among catholics what things mean. Its no different thant protestants interpreting the scriptures on their own.

The difference is that Catholics have an infallilble standard delivered to us from Jesus through the Apostles. We know that, if and when someone ever arrives at an interpretation that is inconsistent with that infallible standard, that they are off base.

This really doesn’t say much for the church then since all you can do is give but generalized interpretations.

This is just a slanderous anti-catholic remark. You have no respect for the Church, so you will not find anything that “says much for the Church”.

You will never be able to understand much of the scriptures with this kind of method.

We will certainly may not understand them the way heretics do. Some Catholics cannot even fathom how non-Catholics come up with some of the strange interpretations that emerge, like baptism having nothing to do with water, for instance.

What about teachings that Jesus nor His apostles never taught?
Jesus only taught so much and hopefully we can agree its contained in the NT. Would this be correct?

No, Jesus revealed EVERYTHING to His Apostles. I do agree that only so much is contained in the NT, though.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not the one making the claim that she was without sin. Catholics are. All that we know what Jesus said and did and what His apostles said and did can only be found in the Scriptures. Thats our limitations. There is no apostolic support that says she was without sin.

If you wish to deny the Apostolic Succession, that is your perogative, but don’t try to pursuade others to fall into your error. “We” are not limited to Scripture, and are grateful to have other sources of revelation.

 

[guanophore]

i’m doing what the Scriptures command us to do. We are to hold the teachers of the church accountable to the Scriptures.

This is both disingenuous and erroneous. First of all, you don’t recognize the Catholic faith as a true teacher of the faith. You start out with the assumption that the Church has erred.

Second, when scripture says to “examine everything and hold fast to that which is true” it includes the Sacred Tradition, instead of excluding it. In fact, most of the NT was not yet written at that time, and the instruction refers to the Apostolic Teaching in the light of the OT.

Thirdly, by what authority are you empowered to depose the authority that Jesus appointed? This is what I am referring to when I say that you have a self appointed ministry to debunk Catholicism that you practice here at CAF.

If the Scriptures don’t teach something as doctrine neither should anyone else.

Here is one of the foundation stones of the Sola Scriptura theory. The Scriptures don’t “teach”. People teach. The Scriptures contain documentation, but are applied by people. What you are saying here is that you have the authority to apply what you are reading to Catholics (and anyone else who will listen)

Here is what Basil of Caesaria wrote in regards to doctrines:
"We ought to carefully to examine whether the doctrine offered to us is conformable to Scripture, and if not, to reject it. Nothing must be added to the inspired words of God; all that is outside Scripture is not of faith, but is sin. (Prolegomena, 2, Work 3, Ascetic (iii) )

Blessings upon Basil, who accepted Sacred Tradition, and understood that no Catholic Teaching contradicts scripture!

This is what is called reading into the passage. As you may know, those that knew her best never make such a comparison.

No, ja4, you do not know that, because you were not there! Those who were there have passed on to us that she was ever virgin. Since they were the friends and companions of Jesus, don’t you think they would know that he was an only child?

Not so. What i don’t accept on scriptural grounds is using the scriptures in this fashion. It violates the integrity of the scriptures and tries to make them say things that were never intended.

I think you could not know about the integrity of the scriptures, since you deny the integrity of the Sacred Traditions from whence they came.

The ark is dead wood while Mary was alive.
If the ark was not properly handled a person could die. Should we assume if she was not a person would die?

I recommend against making assumptions.

Yes, but this should go to the Mary as Ark thread, rather than this one. Are you trying to derail another thread, ja4?

The problem with this is that there is no record of anyone in the NT looking at Mary and seeing Jesus.

I beg to differ! Evidently you have not read the canticle of Elizabeth!

“Why should the mother of my Lord come to me?”

For one the scriptures don’t teach it. Secondly, my relationship to God has nothing to do with Mary. The ark itself disappears i think during the time of Jeremiah. The apostles never use it as a type for her or Jesus.

Well, we see it differently. When we read Luke, we see that she is compared to the Ark. But then, scriptures don’t teach, people do. You have been taught a great deal of anti-catholic hatred and prejudice. If your relation ship with God has nothing to do with Mary, why are you on this thread?

[/QUOTE]

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
I’m not the one making the claim that she was without sin. Catholics are. All that we know what Jesus said and did and what His apostles said and did can only be found in the Scriptures. Thats our limitations. There is no apostolic support that says she was without sin.

guanophore
If you wish to deny the Apostolic Succession, that is your perogative, but don’t try to pursuade others to fall into your error. “We” are not limited to Scripture, and are grateful to have other sources of revelation.

Do you agree then that no writer of the Scriptures never make any reference to her being without sin?

Can we also agree that Paul, Peter, James or John never state in any way she was sinless?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Not so. It is by far best to think of these children as “real” children born by natural means of a relationship with Joseph.

guanophore
You have decided that it is best for you to live in “protest” against the Authority that Jesus appointed to the Church He established. You have decided, in your rebellious state as a subject of the Roman Pontiff, that you reject the Sacred Tradition that was handed down by the Apostles. As a consequence, you have fallen into error in a number of areas, one of these being that it is "best’ to think of Mary as someone other than ever virgin. This is a “New Gospel”, that only emerged in that last 300 years. Even the original Protestants never believed such a thing!

Now that you are disconnected so far from your own family history, you are wandering further and further from the faith that produced the NT.

This response didn’t deal at all with my post. Instead of attacking me deal with the post…

Now try it again-----

 

[guanophore]

Do you agree then that no writer of the Scriptures never make any reference to her being without sin?

Can we also agree that Paul, Peter, James or John never state in any way she was sinless?

ja4, we have been over and over this. No, I do not agree that there are no references. We do agree that you do not see them. You have your anti-Catholic blinders on. You refuse to accept the Catholic understanding of the scripture. That is your perogative, of course, you are a person made in the image and likeness of God, and have free will. If, by your free will, you wish to reject the Apostolic Teachings, you are free to do so. However it is not right for you to come to a Catholic Forum and try to evangelize people into your Sola Scriptura beliefs.

This response didn’t deal at all with my post. Instead of attacking me deal with the post…

Now try it again-----

On the contrary, ja4, this is absolutely a response to your post. You have accepted as “natural” (fleshly?) your reading of the scripture that Jesus had siblings born of Mary. However, those that walked with Jesus passed on to us that He was an only child. Having received that Teaching, we must understand the Sacred Writings in light of it. However, you reject this Source of Revelation, so you misinterpret the scriptures using your own “natural” reading ability.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3292740]ja4, we have been over and over this. No, I do not agree that there are no references.

If you know the scriptures then you know i’m correct.

We do agree that you do not see them. You have your anti-Catholic blinders on. You refuse to accept the Catholic understanding of the scripture. That is your perogative, of course, you are a person made in the image and likeness of God, and have free will. If, by your free will, you wish to reject the Apostolic Teachings, you are free to do so. However it is not right for you to come to a Catholic Forum and try to evangelize people into your Sola Scriptura beliefs.

What should i do then when i see catholics attacking the scriptures via anti sola scriptura arguments? Should i consider those attacks as a form of evangelism for the catholic church?

On the contrary, ja4, this is absolutely a response to your post. You have accepted as “natural” (fleshly?) your reading of the scripture that Jesus had siblings born of Mary. However, those that walked with Jesus passed on to us that He was an only child. Having received that Teaching, we must understand the Sacred Writings in light of it. However, you reject this Source of Revelation, so you misinterpret the scriptures using your own “natural” reading ability.

It not about some kind of “natural” (fleshly?)" reading of the scriptures but a conclusion based on the facts of the scriptures themselves. What you are doing to your loss is allowing catholic doctrine determine the meaning of Scripture rather than allowing the Scriptures to speak clearly and plainly as God intended them.

 

[Old_Scholar]

ja4, we have been over and over this. No, I do not agree that there are no references. We do agree that you do not see them. You have your anti-Catholic blinders on. You refuse to accept the Catholic understanding of the scripture. That is your perogative, of course, you are a person made in the image and likeness of God, and have free will. If, by your free will, you wish to reject the Apostolic Teachings, you are free to do so. However it is not right for you to come to a Catholic Forum and try to evangelize people into your Sola Scriptura beliefs.

On the contrary, ja4, this is absolutely a response to your post. You have accepted as “natural” (fleshly?) your reading of the scripture that Jesus had siblings born of Mary. **However, those that walked with Jesus passed on to us that He was an only child. ** Having received that Teaching, we must understand the Sacred Writings in light of it. However, you reject this Source of Revelation, so you misinterpret the scriptures using your own “natural” reading ability.

I hope you will be able to give us a link to the writings of those who walked with jesus who passed along the fact that He was an only child as you said above in the part I highlighted…

Otherwise, one may think you just made that up…

 

[guanophore]

If you know the scriptures then you know i’m correct.

I know that you read them with anti-Catholic spectacles, and so you don’t see in them what Catholics do. I understand this, I used to to it too!

What should i do then when i see catholics attacking the scriptures via anti sola scriptura arguments? Should i consider those attacks as a form of evangelism for the catholic church?

Catholics do not attack scripture, because Catholics know that scripture is written by, for, and about Catholics. The Bible is a Catholic book.

Some Catholics attack wrong teaching and wrong interpretation of the Holy Writings. I suppose how you take that would depend upon the venue in which it occurs. If Catholics come to a non-Catholic forum and try to purport Catholic doctrine, then I would expect them to be reprimanded. The purpose of this forum is to answer questions about the Catholic faith, not to provide a venue for you to perpetrate your anti-Catholic beliefs and sentiments. Does that make sense?

It not about some kind of “natural” (fleshly?)" reading of the scriptures but a conclusion based on the facts of the scriptures themselves. What you are doing to your loss is allowing catholic doctrine determine the meaning of Scripture rather than allowing the Scriptures to speak clearly and plainly as God intended them.

The NT was written by Catholics, and reflects Catholic doctrine. Misunderstanding of the NT has occured because Protestants have separated the Holy Writings from the Sacred Tradition that produced the text. What God intends is for the two to remain together. When that happens, there are no contradictions.

 

[Good_Fella]

I hope you will be able to give us a link to the writings of those who walked with jesus who passed along the fact that He was an only child as you said above in the part I highlighted…

Otherwise, one may think you just made that up…

Matthew was aware that Mary was ever-virgin. The Holy Spirit recalled this fact to him, as is obvious in his citation of the prophet Isaiah: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The (tes) Virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Mt 1, 22).

Luke was also inspired by the Holy Spirit when he penned these words to express what the Church had already understood about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity: “How shall this be, seeing I do not know a man” (Lk 1, 34)?

Here is how Pope John Paul ll explained Luke 1,34 in his catechesis of 24 July 1996:

“Such a query seems surprising, to say the least, if we call to mind the biblical accounts that relate the announcement of an extraordinary birth to a childless woman. Those cases concerned married women who were naturally sterile, to whom God gave the gift of a child through their normal conjugal life ( 1Sm 1:19-20), in response to their anguished prayers (cf. Gen 15:2; 30:22-23; 1 Sm 1:10; Lk 1:13). Mary received the angel’s message in a different situation. She was not a married woman with problems of sterility; by a voluntary choice she intended to remain a virgin. Therefore, her intention of virginity, ther fruit of her love for the Lord, appeared to be an obstacle to the motherhood announced to her. At first sight, Mary’s words would seem merely to express only her present state of virginity…Nevertheless, the context in which the question was asked: “How can this be?” and the affirmation that follows: “since I do not know man,” emphasize both Mary’s present virginity and her intention to remain a virgin. The expression she used, with the verb in the present tense (not present perfect: my emphasis), reveals the permanence and continuity of her state.”

It would appear, too, that three evangelists of the gospels were acquainted with the Messianic prophecy of Zechariah 12, 10 wherein the prophet alludes to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity when prophesying about the Messiah. Again:

‘And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on him whom they have PIERCED (Jn 19, 37); and they will mourn for him, as one mourns for AN ONLY SON (Mt 1, 22; cf. Isa 7, 14) and they will weep bitterly over him, as one weeps for a FIRSTBORN (Lk 2, 7).’

Why do Protestants ignore this prophecy with respect to Mary’s virginal state? The “only son” she gave birth to was Jesus, who was consecrated to God as the “firstborn” and “pierced” by the soldier’s spear upon the Cross.

“The apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time. Hence, the apostles, in handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to maintain the traditions which they had learned either by word of mouth or by letter (cf. 2 Th 2:15); and they warn them to fight hard for the faith that had been handed on to them once and for all (cf. Jude 3)…The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in the insight into the realities and words that are being passed on…It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their heart (cf. Lk 2:19, 51). It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth. Thus as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plentitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in her.”
[Dei Verbum # 8, Vatican ll: The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation]

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
I’m not the one making the claim that she was without sin. Catholics are. All that we know what Jesus said and did and what His apostles said and did can only be found in the Scriptures. Thats our limitations. There is no apostolic support that says she was without sin.

guanophore
If you wish to deny the Apostolic Succession, that is your perogative, but don’t try to pursuade others to fall into your error. “We” are not limited to Scripture, and are grateful to have other sources of revelation.

What do you mean “other sources of revelation”?

 

[guanophore]

What do you mean “other sources of revelation”?

The teaching of the Apostles, which has been preserved in the succession.

Mark 4:34
but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

Acts 4:33
33 And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

Acts 2:41-42
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching

 

[justasking4]

The teaching of the Apostles, which has been preserved in the succession.

Mark 4:34
but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

Acts 4:33
33 And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

Acts 2:41-42
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching

Are all these “teaching of the Apostles” contained only in the Scriptures?

 

[guanophore]

Are all these “teaching of the Apostles” contained only in the Scriptures?

No, but why would they be? Jesus commissioned HIs Apostles to preach and to teach. He set up an Apostolic Succession. He never intended for people to learn His way of life by a book, but by way of faithful men, who could teach others also.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3301109]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Are all these “teaching of the Apostles” contained only in the Scriptures?

guanophore

No, but why would they be?

Where then can i find these “teaching of the Apostles” not found in Scripture?
Do you also know which apostles taught something that is not in Scripture? What exactly are these teachings?

Jesus commissioned HIs Apostles to preach and to teach. He set up an Apostolic Succession.

After the apostles died, who claims to be an apostle after them?
Does Clement or any church father claim to be an apostle?

He never intended for people to learn His way of life by a book, but by way of faithful men, who could teach others also.

If thats the case then why does Paul in Colossians 3:16 write these words:
Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

How does a catholic let the words of Christ (which are found only in the Scriptures) if He never intended people to learn His way of life by a book?

Why do the Scriptures teach so much on how we are to live the Christian life? For example, again in Colossians 3:8-9 he exhorts Christians in one aspect of how to live the Christian life when he writes these words:
8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.
9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,

Or take what Scripture should be our focus in Colossians 3:1-4:
Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
2 Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.
3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
4 When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.

There is no way a Christian could have known these things without a “book”.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Scriptures, a book, does teach us how to live the Christian life. These “books” are inspired-inerrant and meant for Christians to know very very well. The sad thing is that so many don’t and believe as you do.