Could Mary have sinned?

[Truthstalker]

I wasn’t aware that it wasn’t in Scripture.

It’s not versed, but it’s there, just as the Trinity is there, even though it’s not versed.

BTW, If the Holy Spirit prevented Mary from sinning (again, “Puppetology”), then there would be no reason to venerate her as We Catholics so lovingly do.

Yes, the worship of the will. Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism are still alive in the Catholic church. Officially condemned but they found a back door.

 

[Good_Fella]

Not so. I know what the scriptures say about these things that your church tries to claim they are found in Scripture. Trying to say that Mary never sinned because she was supposedly prevented from doing so is assertion without a fact.

All we have from the apostles are their writings. Because of this we are limited by what we can say is true. To go beyond what the Scriptures say is to speculate and that is what the catholic church does when it says she was without.

They may not have written about these things in a systmatic theological way but we do know how to interpret their writings in context. We do in fact have a very good idea what they believed about these things.

And were not the Scrptures themselves used as the foundation to refute these heresies?

I don’t start off with the premise that i beleive many catholics do i.e. that the church cannot err in matters of faith and morals. Rather i look for the support for these doctrines in the scriptures. Do the apostles teach she never sinned? Do they teach she was immaculately concieved? If anyone would know it would be the apostles. I would suspect Luke or John who probably knew her best never mention such a thing about her. This in itself should tell you that such a belief about her was totally unknown in the
1st century. To continue to say so is to believe in speculations which have no basis in Scripture.

JA4, again, Mary chose not to sin. She never resisted God’s grace. Luke assures us that she was “full of grace”. We are all free to resist God’s grace, so grace does not absolutely prevent us from committing personal sins. But God did preserve Mary from the stain of original sin at the moment she was conceived. By the way, you do not know what Scripture has to say about Mary’s sinlessness. Apart from Sacred Tradition you cannot know much of anything contained in Scripture, but only accept the Catholic doctrines you actually prefer for personal reasons. For Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide his apostles and their validly ordained successors (the Episcopacy and Magisterium) in all truth in the formulation of Church doctrine.

 

[graceandglory]

Then i must be mistaken. I could have sworn i had heard from one of the best catholic apologist that he used an anaolgy that she was somehow “saved” from sinning like a person who is about to walk in a mud puddle but is prevented from doing so. I must have heard wrong then.

Where does your church say she “chose” not to sin?

The actual doctrine reads like this:

In 1854, Pius IX made the infallible statement Ineffabilis Deus:*** “The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin*.”**

Which begs the question:
Where in the Bible does it say “Original Sin?”
(Also a Catholic doctrine)

 

[guanophore]

You can no more tell me with any certainty what a verse means that your church has not infallibly interpreted than any non catholic could. Your infallible interpreter is really not much help here. Thats just the way it is…

I don’t have a personal infallible interpretation. I can tell you with certainty what a verse means whenever the interpretation is consistent with the Apostolic Teachings.

However, I suspect that even the few verses the Church has defined will not help you much either, because it is not an infallible interpretation you are looking for, but one that is consistent with your beliefs. That is why I keep asking you why you are here?

You have already made up your mind that you don’t want “Catholic Answers” !

i can and have done so and have shown repeatedly that the support for Mary being without sin cannot be supported by the scriptures. We both cannot be right.

Actually, you never did so. you are unable to articulate how Catholics see these things in scripture, and you do not. If you were able to assume the position of your opponent, you could do that. I know you probably never took a debate class, and tried to argue for a position you do not share, but it is very helpful for such discussions to be able to apprehend the opposite position.

As to being right, of course people with different opinions can both be right. Don’t you remember the story about the 3 blind men that went to see the elephant?

I never said that catholics are not allowed to interpret.

Actually, you have said that, which is why I characterized your post as slanderous and full of calumny.

In fact you cannot get away from interpeting the moment you start to read. Protestants are continually mocked by various catholics for their “private interpretations” when catholics are guilty of the same thing.

No, Protestants are not “mocked”. Well, I should say that I do not mock them for interpreting. However, I do see that it happens here on the forum. Private interpreation is not an occassion for mocking, or guilt. I agree with you that interpreting is necessary when reading. When Catholics read, they do so in the light of the Teachings of the Apostles. When protestants read, they do it in the light of some other teaching. But, all are interpreting.

I take these forums as opportunity to discuss these matters among catholics. No one is forced to discuss and respond. There is so much to discuss that this is one of the best forums that i have found. I too have been challenged in a number of ways on these forums and its been an excellent way to grow in my understanding.

That is good, I guess. Don’t you think it is possible for that to happen without all the anti-Catholic bigotry?

 

[guanophore]

Not so. I know what the scriptures say about these things that your church tries to claim they are found in Scripture. Trying to say that Mary never sinned because she was supposedly prevented from doing so is assertion without a fact.

One could say that about pretty much the whole of Christian doctrine, could they not? I mean, how can you “prove” (without using scripture) that there even was an Adam and Eve, or that they disobeyed God, or that original sin was the result, and that they needed a savior? How can you “prove” that Abraham Issac and Jacob existed? We believe these matters by faith, and not by “proofs”.

All we have from the apostles are their writings. Because of this we are limited by what we can say is true. To go beyond what the Scriptures say is to speculate and that is what the catholic church does when it says she was without.

This is not true for those who have received the Apostolic Tradition, ja4. So, please speak for yourself when you reject the remainder of the divine deposit of faith. If you wish to limit yourself, then at least take responsibility for it! Instead of using the royal “we” as if your limitations applied to all, keep your limits to yourself!

And were not the Scrptures themselves used as the foundation to refute these heresies?

Yes, along with sacred tradition. The Fathers would never have considered separating the two as you have done.

I don’t start off with the premise that i beleive many catholics do i.e. that the church cannot err in matters of faith and morals. Rather i look for the support for these doctrines in the scriptures. Do the apostles teach she never sinned? Do they teach she was immaculately concieved? If anyone would know it would be the apostles. I would suspect Luke or John who probably knew her best never mention such a thing about her. This in itself should tell you that such a belief about her was totally unknown in the
1st century. To continue to say so is to believe in speculations which have no basis in Scripture.

again, ja4, what is your goal here? You are on a Catholic forum, trying to convince CAtholics that their deposit of faith does not exist (it is speculation) and telling us that you cannot understand what the scriptures say in the light of Apostolic Teaching (which you say does not exist. Could you consider the slogan “live and let live”? Instead of trying to uproot what you perceive as weeds, what would happen if you just gave permission for CAtholics to believe differently than you? Why keep badgering?

 

[Jon_S]

Mary did not sin. There is no proof. There never has been and there never will be, and just like the Bible you proclaim to be the inspired word of God, you will just have to take the Church’s word for it.

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

Good Fella;3307794]

Not so. I know what the scriptures say about these things that your church tries to claim they are found in Scripture. Trying to say that Mary never sinned because she was supposedly prevented from doing so is assertion without a fact.

All we have from the apostles are their writings. Because of this we are limited by what we can say is true. To go beyond what the Scriptures say is to speculate and that is what the catholic church does when it says she was without.

 

[justasking4]

In the time of Arius, Scripture was interpreted by the Magisterium in light of apostolic Tradition. The Church may authoritatively make explicit and definitive what is implict and unclear in Scripture. Arius presumed to privately interpret Scripture just like Luther and Justasking4, and as a result created a heretical teaching.

If what you say is true here i.e. “Scripture was interpreted by the Magisterium in light of apostolic Tradition” then your own church has failed to abide by this principle for the mere fact the apostles never taught she was without sin.

Scripture is worthless as a source of confirmation when interpreted outside of apostolic Tradition.

Depends what you mean by apostolic Tradition. If you mean the scriptures themselves as the apostolic Tradition then i agree. If something besides the scriptures then you have a problem.

Look at what has happened to Protestantism, since Calvin separated himself from Luther after the latter separated himself from the Apostolic Church.

Actually the protestant church is truer to the Scriptures than the Roman Catholic church is in structure, practice and doctrines.

Luke 1, 28 may confirm the Immaculate Conception when taken in context with Scripture as a whole from Genesis 3 to Revelation 17. If Luke was not explicit enough for you, it could be because he may not have understood the fullness of this truth by that time. We cannot be certain. But then he may have known, although he never penned his belief explicitly. We should also recall that the apostles’ primary focus was on Christ, who alone is necessary for our salvation. Christ commissioned his apostles to preach the news of salvation. And at the time they wrote the NT scriptures, the apostles believed that the Second Coming (Parousia) was imminent. What was the point in treating so many theological implications apart from the death and resurrection of Christ? The apostles primarily preached repentance and the coming of the kingdom in the manner of John the Baptist. JA4, you are the one who is speculating.

I don’t know how you can say i’m speculating about Mary being a sinner when the Scriptures are clear that all men are sinners. Take your statement–“Mary chose not to sin.” has no basis in Scripture. There is not one verse that comes even close to saying this. To say that she chose not to sin is to speculate.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3305811]So, you believe in all the writings of the Early Church Fathers up to what point in time.

Not sure what you mean here. If a father writes something that is in harmony with the scriptures then that father is speaking the truth on that issue. If he says something that cannot be supported by scripture then its either an error or his opinion.
What do you do when you find that fathers either contradict each other or church teaching on a particular issue? Do you also believe up to a certain point?

How many centuries to you go in silence before you say, “This can’t be what the Apostles taught”.

Its not about time but what did the apostles teach i.e.Scripture. You can’t claim apostolic teaching for something if its not in Scripture. Such is the case with Mary’ sinlessness.

You seem to accept the first centuries documents written by the Church Fathers as proof of Apostolic Tradition, in general, but you tend to deny the very teachings that these documents teach.

What “first centuries documents written by the Church Fathers” are you referring to? Is this the NT?

 

[justasking4]

graceandglory;3308414]The actual doctrine reads like this:

In 1854, Pius IX made the infallible statement Ineffabilis Deus:*** “The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin***.”

There is no biblical support for this statement. In fact if i’m not mistaken it was unknown to the church for centuries. Secondly is there some kind of Sacred Tradition to this? If so, where can it be found?

Which begs the question:
Where in the Bible does it say “Original Sin?”
(Also a Catholic doctrine)

See Romans 5:12

 

[sodak]

Ja4,

This won’t work. You keep trying to separate the Bible from the Church. We Catholics see them as a glove on a hand.

Just because something is not in the Bible doesn’t make it false. The Bible is without error, but it also doesn’t tell me what I’ll have to pay the IRS in taxes this year. I have an accountant that tells me. It may point to things that need clarification. I have a Church for that. One given to me with a strong promise from Christ.

 

[Good_Fella]

There is no biblical support for this statement. In fact if i’m not mistaken it was unknown to the church for centuries. Secondly is there some kind of Sacred Tradition to this? If so, where can it be found?

See Romans 5:12

If you read the Apostolic Constitution ‘Ineffabilis Deus’, you will find the biblical passages Pope Pius lX cites that implicitly support this dogma and made explicit therein. The Pontiff spoke ‘ex cathedra’, from the Chair of Peter. Christ speaks to his Church through his vicar on earth. Luke and the early Church Fathers taught that Mary was sinless. Dogma develops over time, including the dogmas of the Trinity and Original Sin, implicitly revealed in Scripture.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;3310329]If you read the Apostolic Constitution ‘Ineffabilis Deus’, you will find the biblical passages Pope Pius lX cites that implicitly support this dogma and made explicit therein. The Pontiff spoke ‘ex cathedra’, from the Chair of Peter. Christ speaks to his Church through his vicar on earth.

Luke and the early Church Fathers taught that Mary was sinless.

Where does Luke say Mary was sinless? Its not in 1:28 since the word used for “favored” one does not mean sinless all her life or has anything to do with sin.

Do you find it troubling that this ‘ex cathedra’ has only been used once? It seems so many disputes could be settled in the catholic church if this was used more often.

Dogma develops over time, including the dogmas of the Trinity and Original Sin, implicitly revealed in Scripture.

For doctrines to develop properly and reflect the will of Christ they must be truly and explicitedly grounded in the Scriptures. Unless this principle is adhered to anything could be said to be a doctrine under the guise its “implicit”.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

You don’t know this. Since all we know of her is found in Scripture and the Scriptures never make this claim then we should not either.

This is like saying "all we know about christianity is what I can fnd in scripture. And if you cannot see it, it should not exist. This is an example of what I was telling you about trying to teach Catholics to adopt your Sola Scriptura theology, and abandon their faith.

You are using your “royal we” here again. Please speak for yourself, especially since you are representing non-Catholic beliefs. We have a great deal of information that is not in scripture. You can reject it for yourself, but it is wrong to try to pursuade others to do so.

Being full of grace does not mean she was incapable of sinning. Look up the meaning of this word in a greek lexicon will show you this.

You are exactly right, whichis why you have been told several times that representing Catholic thought this way is deceptive. Catholicism does not teach that she was incapable of sinning, but that she was born free of original sin,and that she CHOSE not ot sin, just as Eve, who was also born without origninal sin, might have done.

Then give me the “Sacred Tradition” that tells you otherwise? Who is the one in Sacred Tradition that says she never sinned?

Why do you ask for this, ja4, since you do not believe there is such a thing as Sacred Tradition? why are you asking for what you believe are “speculations of men”? You don’t consider them authoritative, so what is your motive?

The problem is that there is no teaching of the apostles that ever taught she was without sin. This means there is no apostolic tradition to support this claim.

Yousay things like this because you reject the portion of Divine Revelation that is not in scripture.

Actually its the other way around. By holding this doctrine to the standard of the Scriptures i am not in any doctrinal error for the mere fact the scriptures don’t teach these things. Rather it is those who go beyond the Scriptures that fall into error.

Scriptures don’ t “teach”. People “teach”. You got your teaching from some anti-Catholic sources, apparently.

Are you on the forum to convince Catholics that they have “fallen into error because they go beyond the scriptures?”

 

[guanophore]

If what you say is true here i.e. “Scripture was interpreted by the Magisterium in light of apostolic Tradition” then your own church has failed to abide by this principle for the mere fact the apostles never taught she was without sin.

You make these kinds of statements becuase you reject part of the Divine Deposit of Faith. At the same time, you accept certain things that you personally agree with that come from that Deposit.

Depends what you mean by apostolic Tradition. If you mean the scriptures themselves as the apostolic Tradition then i agree. If something besides the scriptures then you have a problem.

ja4, please own your own problems, instead of trying to put them off on others. ja4 has a problem with the Deposit of Faith that is outside of scripture.

Actually the protestant church is truer to the Scriptures than the Roman Catholic church is in structure, practice and doctrines.

I suggest that a thread on Mary is not the appropriate one for this kind of arguement. To me, it seems like a not so subtle way of slipping in some anti-Catholic rhetoric.

I don’t know how you can say i’m speculating about Mary being a sinner when the Scriptures are clear that all men are sinners. Take your statement–“Mary chose not to sin.” has no basis in Scripture. There is not one verse that comes even close to saying this. To say that she chose not to sin is to speculate.

Are you saying that the scriptures do not say anything about avoiding sin?!

What do you do when you find that fathers either contradict each other or church teaching on a particular issue? Do you also believe up to a certain point?

This is very far off the topic, ja4. The Fathers did not “contradict each other” on the Marian doctrines. The only contradictions came from heretics.

Its not about time but what did the apostles teach i.e.Scripture. You can’t claim apostolic teaching for something if its not in Scripture. Such is the case with Mary’ sinlessness.

This is an example of what I was telling you about telling Catholics what to do, or not do . You are saying “you can’t” as if you have some authority to tell Catholics what they are allowed to believe, and what they are not. It is a very inappropriate form of language to use when you are visiting a Catholic forum. It is one of the forms you use frequently that make it appear you are here to pull Catholics away from their faith.

Where does Luke say Mary was sinless? Its not in 1:28 since the word used for “favored” one does not mean sinless all her life or has anything to do with sin.

This is what the Church teaches that the passage means. You are always asking for an infallible interpretation, now you have one!

Do you find it troubling that this ‘ex cathedra’ has only been used once? It seems so many disputes could be settled in the catholic church if this was used more often.

Oh, yeah! It works so well with you!

You have all your complaints and doubts with the Catholic Church settled this way, don’t you?

For doctrines to develop properly and reflect the will of Christ they must be truly and explicitedly grounded in the Scriptures. Unless this principle is adhered to anything could be said to be a doctrine under the guise its “implicit”.

You have a misunderstanding about what Jesus gave to the Apostles to teach, as well as the authority they had to teach it.

 

[NotWorthy]

For doctrines to develop properly and reflect the will of Christ they must be truly and explicitedly grounded in the Scriptures. Unless this principle is adhered to anything could be said to be a doctrine under the guise its “implicit”.

So how did you get the doctrine of the Trinity?

There is no explicit teaching of the Trinity in the New Testament that I know of.

 

[guanophore]

There is no biblical support for this statement. In fact if i’m not mistaken it was unknown to the church for centuries. Secondly is there some kind of Sacred Tradition to this? If so, where can it be found?

You are mistaken, and this is a common mistake made by persons who are unfamiliar with their family history. Centuries after the Apostles died, any “new gospel” that emerged was vigorously set upon by apologists. One of the reasons we know that the Marian doctrines were always held is because we don’t see this reaction, as we do against new doctrines that emerged, such as gnosticism and Arianism.

 

[justasking4]

sodak;3310276]Ja4,

This won’t work. You keep trying to separate the Bible from the Church. We Catholics see them as a glove on a hand.

Not so. I’m finding that your church goes beyond the scriptures. There is no scripture that can be truly used to claim she never sinned.

Just because something is not in the Bible doesn’t make it false.

True

The Bible is without error, but it also doesn’t tell me what I’ll have to pay the IRS in taxes this year.

True

I have an accountant that tells me. It may point to things that need clarification. I have a Church for that. One given to me with a strong promise from Christ.

Now your accountant is a fallible human being and can make errors. It would not suprise me he probably already has. Same applies to the catholic church. It is made up of fallible humans who and do err.

 

[graceandglory]

Rather it is those who go beyond the Scriptures that fall into error.

In YOUR opinion.
And according to the extra-biblical tradition that you espouse.

 

[justasking4]

You are mistaken, and this is a common mistake made by persons who are unfamiliar with their family history. Centuries after the Apostles died, any “new gospel” that emerged was vigorously set upon by apologists. One of the reasons we know that the Marian doctrines were always held is because we don’t see this reaction, as we do against new doctrines that emerged, such as gnosticism and Arianism.

Then please enlighten me with the family history. To claim because “we don’t see this reaction, as we do against new doctrines that emerged” does not tell us anything. Who is the first recorded father who claimed Mary did not sin ever? I would think you could answer this since it seems to me that you are familar with your family history.